The Delhi High Court held that the whole bank account cannot be freezed in case of UPI transfer of Rs. 105 to chhole-bhature vendor citing cyber fraud.
The bench of Justice Manoj Jain has observed that the petitioner is a small-scale vendor, engaged in sale of food items and dependent on his daily earnings to sustain his family. Passing 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 action, in essence, amounts to a violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is an integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench noted that the situation is very perplexing for him because if he keeps on doing his business of selling food items and if any customer makes any payment through electronic mode, such amount would eventually go to his aforesaid savings bank account, being linked with the concerned UPI, but he would be, obviously, in no position to make use of such amount because of the fact that the saving bank account has been frozen, as a whole, by the bank.
The petitioner is a small-time vendor, who earns his livelihood by selling chhole-bhature on a rehri in Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He is maintaining a saving bank account with Union Bank of India.
The petitioner, when tried to operate his bank account to his utter surprise, could not do the same. He immediately rushed to his bank and after repeated follow-ups, he was apprised that some unknown person had remitted a sum of Rs. 105/- in his bank account and that such amount 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.
The petitioner contended that he has neither any knowledge nor has any complicity with commission of any cyber-fraud. He also states that without giving any prior notice to him, his bank account could not have been attached. It is also submitted that without hearing him and without following the basic principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem, the bank had no business to seize his entire savings account.
The petitioner stated that when the bank account was frozen, there was a balance of Rs. 1,22,556/- lacs and laments that he is in no position to utilize any amount lying in his bank account, even for meeting his day-to- day expenses.
The petitioner contended that he had no reason to take the aforesaid credit suspiciously as he rather apprehended that some customer might have purchased chhole-bhature from him which he sells @ Rs. 35/- per plate and towards the sale consideration of three plates, there might have been a deposit of Rs. 105/- in his bank account, by electronic mode.
The court held that the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even hinting that the petitioner 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, at the moment.
The court stated that if the petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/bank to de- freeze the account by marking a lien restricted to the disputed amount credited in his account, which is stated to be Rs.105/-.
“This 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. 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,” the court said.
Case Details
Case Title: PAWAN KUMAR RAI Versus UNION OF INDIA
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15066/2024 &CM APPL. 63159/2024
Date: 17th December, 2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Anil Goel
Counsel For Respondent: Amit Gupta
