# Khalsa Medical Store v. R.B.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1050
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 12211 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khalsa-medical-store-v-r-b-i-ors-53815
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
care of necessary procedural requirements, enabling the passport authorities to process and issue
the passport, even in the absence of consent from one parent. Accordingly, where the minor's
application is otherwise in order and all formalities under the Rules are complied with, there exists
no lawful reason to deny the passport.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the respondent authorities are directed to process and
issue the passport of the petitioner forthwith, subject to the completion of routine verification
formalities, as per the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, and the Passport Rules, 1980 and
applicable government notifications. The passport authorities shall ensure that the passport is issued
within a period of four weeks from the date petitioner complies with the procedural requirements
through her mother, which is already communicated by the authorities if there is no legal
impediment. 27. The writ petition is therefore allowed in terms of the above directions. There shall
be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1050
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 12211 of 2025

Khalsa Medical Store ...Petitioner
Versus
R.B.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the notice under Sections 94/106 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking "DEBIT FREEZE" of the account of
the petitioner, without any seizure order, without any indication as to the amount that is required to be put in
lien, without furnishing copy of the F.I.R. and without providing information with regard to the Court wherein
the particular case is pending, can be sustained; and whether the mechanism adopted by the Investigating
Officer, wherein the entire account of the petitioner has been frozen, is justified in law.

HEADNOTE
Freezing of bank account - Notice under Sections 94/106, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section
106 of BNSS should not be interpreted to empower police officers to intervene in money disputes by seizing
property especially based on mere suspicion but it must be bolstered by reasonable belief - Investigating
Officer is required to issue notice containing the amount for which lien is sought - Blanket notice without
indicating the amount on which lien is being sought held illegal and arbitrary - Freezing of entire bank
account without seizure order, without copy of F.I.R. and without indicating the Court wherein the case is
pending held unjustified and illegal - Impugned notice quashed - Direction to immediately de-freeze the
account and allow normal banking activities.
HELD:
Petitioner's bank account was subjected to debit freeze in connection with a cyber crime investigation
pursuant to a notice issued by the Investigating Officer under Sections 94/106 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
1 All. Khalsa Medical Store Vs. R.B.I. & Ors.
1051
Court held that Section 106 of the BNSS should not be interpreted to empower police officers to intervene in
money disputes by seizing property especially based on mere suspicion, but that it must be bolstered by
reasonable belief; that the Investigating Officer is required to not only issue notice under Sections 94/106 of
the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the banks concerned but that the same must contain the amount for which lien is
sought; and that a blanket notice without indicating the amount on which lien is being sought would be illegal
and arbitrary. Court further held that the Investigating Officer is required to intimate the jurisdictional
Magistrate of the said cyber crime and inform the banks of the case number that has been registered on the
basis of which such lien/freezing is sought.
Court found that in the present case, no amount had been indicated in the notice issued to the bank, copy of
the F.I.R. had not been provided, nor any seizure order had been provided to the bank, in spite of the bank
having written to the Investigating Officer to provide the same. In light of the same, Court held that it was
unable to sustain and countenance the mechanism that was used by the Investigating Officer wherein the
entire account of the petitioner had been frozen. The impugned notice was quashed and set aside with a
direction upon the banks concerned to immediately de-freeze the accounts of the petitioner and allow the
petitioner to carry on his normal banking activities.(Paras 4, 7-9, 12-18) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685;
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC 372;
Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 20 SCC 119;
Dharmendra Chawra Harish Bhai v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 557 of
2025 (Raj);
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India, (2024) 1 KLT 826.

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

List of Keyword
Cyber crime; Freezing of bank account; Debit freeze; Seizure of bank account; Section 94 BNSS; Section 106
BNSS; Lien on bank account; Reasonable belief; Intimation to Magistrate; Blanket freeze of account; Defreezing of account.

CASE ARISING FROM
Notice under Sections 94/106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 issued by the
Investigating Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Rachakonda, Hyderabad, Telangana, directing
debit freeze of the petitioner's bank account without indicating the amount for which lien was
sought and without furnishing seizure order or FIR details.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Jalaj Kumar Gupta
Advs For Respondents: Amit Jaiswal , C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. Heard Shri Jalaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Jaiswal
Ojus, learned counsel appearing for the Axis Bank.

2. In spite of several notices given to the Investigating Officer, Police Station Cyber Crime,
Rachakonda, Hyderabad, Telangana, none has appeared on behalf of the same.
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The office report indicates that service of the previous orders has been done upon the
Respondent No. 4.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Axis Bank has fairly submitted that till date,
they have neither received any seizure order from the Respondent No. 4, nor received any
indication as to the amount that is required to be put in lien with regard to the petitioner's bank
account. Shri Amit Jaiswal refers to the notice under Section 94/106 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 received
by the Bank on November 21, 2025, that has sought for debit freeze of the account of the petitioner.
No further documents have been received by the bank in spite of several letters written by the bank
to the Investigating Officer concerned. He has further relied upon the judgment of the Rajasthan
High Court that has specifically dealt with this issue in great detail in the case of Dharmendra
Chawra Harish Bhai Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 557 of 2025, wherein certain directions have been issued in relation to how an account may be
seized as per Section 106 read with Section 94 of the BNSS.

5. Before proceeding to come to a finding as to whether the action of the respondents is in
consonance with the law, one needs to place on record the provision under which the present
actions have been initiated. Ergo, Section 106 and Section 94 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 are delineated
below:-

"106. (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to
have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the
commission of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall
forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to
the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be
conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper
accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property
in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give
custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before
the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the
disposal of the same:

Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and
natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent
and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction
under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 505 and 506 shall,
as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.

***
1 All. Khalsa Medical Store Vs. R.B.I. & Ors.
1053

94. (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the
production of any document, electronic communication, including communication devices which is
likely to contain digital evidence or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any
investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita Appeal from order rejecting
application for restoration of attached property. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to,
summons. Power to take bond for appearance. Arrest on breach of bond for appearance.
Provisions of this Chapter generally applicable to summoneses and warrants of arrest. Summons to
produce document or other thing. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 27 by or before such Court or officer,
such Court or officer may, by a written order, either in physical form or in electronic form, require
the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, to attend and
produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document, or other thing
shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be
produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-

(a) to affect sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the
Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891; or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody
of the postal authority."

6. It is also imperative to bring on record the intimation of debit freeze issued by the
investigating officer to the respondent- Bank. The same is extracted below:-

"NOTICE U/S 94/106 BNSS

It is directed to DEBIT FREEZE Account bearing A/C No.-:917030037515043,Ifsc Code-
:UTIB0000291 as required for investigation in Cr.No:520/2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station,
Rachakonda, Hyderabad, Telangana. The account holder using this account for fraudulent
transfers of money from the victim account to this account. Also, the following details be provided
through email.

1. Statement of account, from date of opening to till today.

2. Scanned copy of Account Opening Form along with documents submitted as proof of
Identity & address.

3. Mobile number, email address, PAN, ATM card number(s) & Aadhaar number linked
to the

account.
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. The balance in the account.

5. If any Notice(s) was/were received from any Law Enforcement Agency/Agencies
earlier, the details of the sender be shared with us (Police station name and investigation officer
details).

6. Provide the Branch details (Branch manager contact details).

7. Provide the Login & Logout IP details of Internet Banking/Mobile Banking for last
(03) months.

8. Provide the Sec.65(B) I.E.Act certificate with above information and sent hard copies
to the below mentioned address.

9. Also provide the NEFT, RTGS, IMPS and UPI transactions for both Source and
Beneficiary transactions. The details required be provided on priority."

7. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy reported in (1999) 7 SCC
685 has given a wide interpretation to the word 'Property' used in Section 102 of CrPC/ Section 106
of B.N.S.S. and categorically held that a bank account is a property and police officer in course of
investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if there is a suspicion with
relation to any offence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted herein below:

"12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to
the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank
account can be held to be "property" within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no
justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It
is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult
to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the courts in concluding the trials is
another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the
Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be
no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank
which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be
withdrawn by the accused and the courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any
direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are,
therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is
"property" within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer
in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have
direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The
contrary view expressed by the Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent
the correct law. It may also be seen that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the
matter of imposition of fine under sub-section (2) of Section 13, the legislatures have provided that
the courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the
property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction
is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources
1 All. Khalsa Medical Store Vs. R.B.I. & Ors.
1055
or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation
given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is
in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act referred to above. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in holding that the police officer could
not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank officer,
prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated upon. Though we have laid down the
law, but so far as the present case is concerned, the order impugned has already been given effect
to and the accused has been operating his account, and so, we do not interfere with the same."

8. The Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat reported in (2018) 2
SCC 372 has expounded that prior notice is not required before or simultaneously attaching a bank
account but a post facto report is mandatorily required to be submitted to the jurisdictional
magistrate. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"20. As regards the procedure for issuing instructions to freeze the bank accounts, it is
noticed that the same has been followed by giving intimation to the Magistrate concerned on 2111-2014 as required in terms of Section 102 of the Code. There is nothing in Section 102 which
mandates giving of prior notice to the account-holder before the seizure of his bank account. The
Magistrate after noticing that the principle stated by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
in Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra [Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra,
2008 Cri LJ 148 (Bom)] has been overruled in terms of the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay
High Court in Vinodkumar Ramachandran Valluvar [Vinodkumar Ramachandran Valluvar v. State
of Maharashtra, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 402 : 2011 Cri LJ 2522] , rightly negatived that
contention. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has expounded that Section 102 does not
require issuance of notice to a person before or simultaneously with the action attaching his bank
account. In Adarsh Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India [Adarsh Coop. Housing Society
Ltd. v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 974 : 2012 Cri LJ 520] , the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court once again considered the issue and rejected the argument that prior notice to
the account-holder was required to be given before seizure of his bank account. It also noted that
the bank account need not be only of the accused but it can be any account creating suspicion
about the commission of an offence. The view so taken commends us."

9. The Supreme Court in Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2019) 20 SCC 119 has held that Section 102 of CrPC should not be interpreted to empower police
officers to intervene in money disputes by seizing property especially based on mere suspicion but
it must be bolstered by 'reasonable belief'. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:

"31. The expression "circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any
offence" in Section 102 does not refer to a firm opinion or an adjudication/finding by a police
officer to ascertain whether or not "any property" is required to be seized. The word "suspicion" is
a weaker and a broader expression than "reasonable belief" or "satisfaction". The police officer is
an investigator and not an adjudicator or a decision maker. This is the reason why the Ordinance
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was enacted to deal with attachment of money and immovable properties in cases of scheduled
offences.

10. The Rajasthan High Court in Dharmendra Chawra Harish Bhai (supra) has
categorically enumerated the steps to be followed in case of a cyber crime and wherein the
Investigating Officer requires lien to be put on account of persons in various locations, including
locations outside the state wherein the investigation is going on and held as follows:

"50. Considering the aforesaid, it is appropriate to direct as under:-

i) after receipt of any information about cyber crime either through a victim or through
NCRP including 1930, the same shall be analyzed and investigated as early as possible by a
designated and trained police officer, not below the rank of ASI or Sub-Inspector, subject to
availability in police station.

(ii) The DGP shall ensure that all such personnel who are involved in the process of
investigating a matter relating to cyber crime are well trained within six months so that an
innocent person may not be prosecuted in an ordinary and casual manner.

(iii) As soon as information about the commission of a crime or suspicion of a crime is
received and an FIR is registered, then before procuring any information from any bank or
payment system operator (PSO or payment aggregator), a copy same shall be forwarded to the
Superintendent of Police and his approval be obtained expressly or orally. An entry to this effect be
recorded in Daily Diary of police station as well in the case diary.

(iv) As soon as any information is received about the transfer of money or transaction of
crime proceed(s) in any bank account or by using any digital payment instrument, including UPI or
a wallet, then information shall be sent immediately to the noual officer of said bank of the
beneficiary or payment service system, including the payment aggregator, so as to take action at
their end. The information should accompany a copy of the FIR or information received by the
police. The bank or the payment system operator (PSO) may decline a request, if it is received
without a copy of any complaint or FIR.

(v) In no case, bank account operated by any financial entity, such as a Payment System
operator (PSO), payment aggregator, or a merchant, be blocked or put on hold by any of the bank
on the request of any police official for a suspicious transaction of any third party. This instruction
shall not be applicable in cases of CBI or ED, including under the PMLA or under the PC Act.

(vi) All banks and payment system operators, including payment aggregators and
financial service providers, are stakeholders as per Guideline No. 7 prepared by the Indian
Cybercrime Coordination Centre and are participants of CFCFRMS, Therefore, they shall appoint
one nodal officer with whom the police may establish contact as and when any emergent situation
arises. The duties of such officer shall be assigned in a manner that one of the officer is available
to contact round the clock. The institution may also use its customer care support for this purpose.
1 All. Khalsa Medical Store Vs. R.B.I. & Ors.
1057

(vii) The police shall not request to any bank to block or put on hold any amount in bank
account or escrow account maintained and operated by any payment System Operator (PSOs)
including payment aggregator and payment wallet operator, or a merchant. If any bank puts on
hold any bank account or escrow account maintained by any such entity on the request of the
police, then the bank shall be personally liable for the Civil and Criminal consequences for the loss
including financial and damage to the reputation of such PSO or merchant.

(viii) As soon as any information is received about unauthorized transaction from any
bank account or any digital transaction, the police may act immediately after informing the
concerned Superintendent of Police and intimate the payment system operator (PSO), including
payment aggregator or digital wallet service provider, to mark lien on a specific amount (money
allegedly transferred from bank account of victim), but in no case the police may ask or request
any bank or payment system operator (PSO) including payment aggregator, to block or suspend
entire financial account of any individual, including any merchant. In case if any of the saving
bank account is used frequently for transferring the crime proceed(s) or for fraudulent
transactions, then the police may inform the concerned bank branch to provide details of said bank
account operator including the transaction history along with location.

(ix) If any credit card or debit card is used to purchase merchandise online money is
transferred to the bank account of a merchant, including financial intermediary or any bank or
payment system operator (PSO) including Payment aggregator, nor any amount be marked as lien,
as the amount has been used and converted to a merchandise, thus the stolen property is not the
money. A misuse of credit/debit card is a disputed transaction between bank and the customer.

(x) As soon as information to block or put on hold or marking of a lien is forwarded to a
bank or any financial intermediary, including a payment system operator (PSO), then the
information shall simultaneously be sent to the concerned jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate within
24 hours. Failing to inform may render such action as void or actionable wrong against police.
These guidelines shall not be applicable upon the blocking and marking a lien on mule accounts
operated by individuals to transfer money crime proceed(s)."

11. The Kerela High Court in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India reported in (2024) 1 KLT
826 has held that if there is a suspicion of alleged crime then the amount frozen must be not be in
its entirety but must be proportionate to the amount alleged to be under suspicion as an order of
freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades
and encroaches upon his invaluable rights to earn and live with dignity. The relevant paragraphs of
the judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"11. In the afore perspective, when the requisitions in these cases - by various Police
Authorities in several States of India - mention the exact amount suspected to have been credited to
the accounts of the petitioners herein, one fails to fathom why their bank accounts in full, should
remain frozen. This is more so because, even when the sums in question may have found credit in
the accounts of the petitioners, unless the investigation eventually reveals that they were complicit
in the Cyber Crime, or had received the same being aware of it, they could never be construed to
be accused.
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
***

13. In the conspectus of the above, I order these Writ Petitions with the following
directions: a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are directed to confine the
order of freeze against the accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the extent of the
amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This
shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and
transact therein, beyond that limit. b. The respondent - Police Authorities concerned are
hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether freezing of accounts of the
petitioners in these Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the afore manner;
and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. c. On the Banks receiving the afore information/intimation from
the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action - either
continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case
may be. d. If, however, no information or intimation is received by their Banks in terms of
directions (b) above, the petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty to approach
this Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left
open and reserved to them, to impel in future."

12. After sifting through the ratios laid down in the catena of judgments mentioned
above, and upon applying our mind to the issue at hand, the following principles may be
laid down for freezing a bank account under a suspicion of cyber crime:-

A. Section 106 of BNSS should not be interpreted to empower police officers to
intervene in money disputes by seizing property especially based on mere suspicion but it
must be bolstered by reasonable belief.

B. Information for freezing the bank account by the investigating officer shall be
sent immediately to the nodal officer of the bank of the beneficiary or payment service
system, including the payment aggregator, so as to take action at their end. The police
officer must furnish information with relation to the alleged crime and should accompany a
copy of the FIR or information received. The bank or the payment system operator (PSO)
may decline a request, if it is received without a copy of any complaint or FIR.

C. The notice under Section 106 of the BNSS may require to mark lien on a
specific amount (money allegedly transferred from or to the bank account of accused), but
in no case the police may ask or request any bank or payment system operator (PSO)
including payment aggregator, to block or suspend entire financial account.

D. As soon as information to block or put on hold or marking of a lien is
forwarded to a bank or any financial intermediary, including a payment system operator
(PSO), then the information shall simultaneously be sent to the jurisdictional Judicial
Magistrate within 24 hours. Failure to inform may render such an action as void.
1 All. Khalsa Medical Store Vs. R.B.I. & Ors.
1059

E. If any bank puts on hold any bank account or escrow account maintained by
any entity / citizen on the request of the police without following the proper procedure,
then the bank shall be personally liable for the Civil and Criminal consequences for the
loss including financial and reputational damage of such entity / citizen.

13. From a perusal of the above, we are of the view that in case of a cyber crime, the
Investigating Officer is required to not only issue notice under Section 94/106 of the
B.N.S.S., 2023 to the banks concerned but the same must contain the amount for which lien
is sought. A blanket notice without indicating the amount, on which lien is being sought,
would be illegal and arbitrary. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer is required to
intimate the jurisdictional Magistrate of the said cyber crime and inform the banks of the
case number that has been registered on basis of which said lien / freezing is sought.

14. In several of these cases, we are finding that the debit freeze is sought on the
entire account of the petitioners without providing to the bank the seizure notice that is
required to be issued by the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, details of cases that
have been registered before the court concerned are also not provided to the banks, who
in turn cannot provide it to the persons whose accounts are being frozen / lien being
created.

15. In our view, this entire action is unjustified and illegal. One may understand a
situation wherein there is a requirement for freezing an account for a limited period so that
the proceeds of crime are not removed. However, even in these extreme cases, it is
incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to provide the bank within three to four days the
seizure order passed for putting a lien on the bank account, the case number on the basis of
which such lien/freezing is being conducted, as well as, provide the amount on which the
lien is sought to be created.

16. In the present case, it is clear that no amount has been indicated in the notice that
has been issued to the bank. Furthermore, copy of the F.I.R. has not been provided nor any
seizure order has been provided to the bank, in spite of the bank having written to the
Investigating Officer to provide the same.

17. In light of the same, we are unable to sustain and countenance the mechanism
that has been used by the Investigating Officer wherein the entire account of the
petitioner has been frozen. No information has also been provided to the bank with
regard to the court wherein the particular case is pending. In light of the same, the
impugned notice is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the banks concerned
to immediately de-freeze the accounts of the petitioner and allow the petitioner to
carry on his normal banking activities. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to
inform the bank for immediate de-freezing of the account in the course of the day
today.

18. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
----------
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 1 ILRA 1060
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 12619 of 2025

Sujeet Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) under Para 13(3) of the
U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 was
without jurisdiction; and whether the writ petition challenging the appellate order was liable to
be dismissed on the ground of laches.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, Para 13(3)
- Appeal - Delay in filing writ petition - Laches - Dismissal at admission stage. (E-5)
HELD:
Petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
(Food) setting aside the S.D.M.'s rejection of compassionate allotment of a fair price shop to
opposite party No. 5 and remanding the matter, which was assailed after unexplained delay.
Para 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016
provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority denying the issue or renewal of
the agreement to the fair price shop owner, suspension or cancellation of the agreement, may appeal to the
appellate authority.
When the application submitted by opposite party No. 5 for issuance of a fair price shop licence after the
death of his father, who himself was a fair price shop owner, was denied, the rejection order was appealable
under Para 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.
Therefore, it could not be said that the impugned appellate order dated 31.07.2025 was passed by the
appellate authority without jurisdiction.
The appellate order was passed on 31.07.2025 and the writ petition challenging the appellate order was filed
on 18.12.2025; the delay in filing the writ petition had not been explained. This Court found no good ground
to entertain the writ petition, which was dismissed at the admission stage. (Paras 7-12)

CASE LAW CITED
Nil.

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226;
U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order

List of Keyword
Fair price shop; Appeal under Control Order; Jurisdiction; Delay; Laches.