New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has come to rescue of a chhole bhature vendor whose bank account was frozen by the Union Bank of India after Rs 105 was credited from a suspicious account connected with cyber fraud to his account and directed the bank to defreeze the account by marking a lien restricted to the disputed amount of Rs 105 credited in his account.
Justice Manoj Jain, while saying that the court can understand the difficulty which the petitioner must be facing because of the fact that his bank account has been frozen, said, “This (defreeze) is being done to ensure that a small-scale vendor like petitioner herein is in a position to continue to do his business and there is no violation of his valuable right of livelihood” and added, “since the lien of Rs.105 has been directed to be marked in his account, the petitioner, as a necessary corollary, would be permitted to operate his bank account in whatever manner he wants.”
Petitioner is a small-scale vendor dependent on his daily earnings to sustain his family, High Court noted
The High Court, while noting that the petitioner is a small-scale vendor, engaged in sale of food items and dependent on his daily earnings to sustain his family, said that passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity.
Passing of an order of freezing entire bank account of petitioner has a serious and adverse implication: High Court
“Passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” Justice Jain said.
Difficult to comprehend as to why the entire bank account of petitioner has been freezed: High Court
Justice Jain further said that when the investigating agency has identified a specific sum credited to the bank account of the petitioner, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the entire bank account of petitioner has been freezed and the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even hinting that he was either mastermind or accomplice in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable and sustainable.
The petitioner was apprised that some unknown person had remitted a sum of Rs. 105 in his bank account and it was connected with some cyber fraud and, therefore, his entire bank account had been freezed in terms of intimation received from the concerned investigating agency.
What did the petitioner submit?
The petitioner submitted that he has neither any knowledge nor has any complicity with commission of any cyber-fraud and stated that without giving any prior notice to him, without hearing him and without following the basic principles of natural justice, his bank account could not have been attached and the bank had no business to seize his entire savings account.
What did the bank submit?
The counsel representing the bank submitted that they had freezed the account, based on communication received from Anantapur IV Town Police Station, Ananthapuram, Andhra Pradesh after being informed that the police had lodged a First Information Report pertaining to UPI related fraud on the basis of complaint lodged with them on September 30.
The High Court noted that the communication received from the concerned investigating agency by the respondent bank itself suggests that the cyber fraud was of Rs.71,000 and out of the above said amount, a sum of Rs.105 only landed in the account of the petitioner.
“There is nothing, at least as of now, to indicate or to suggest that the petitioner is part of any conspiracy or is himself a cyber criminal. The petitioner, quite possibly, may not even be connected with the above said offence at all and might be innocent and unintended beneficiary only,” the High Court said while directing the bank to defreeze the account of the petitioner.
Comments are closed.