The Kerala High Court has strongly criticised an advocate for attesting an affidavit containing statements that the Court found to be false, observing that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a responsibility to prevent litigants from misleading the judicial system.
Justice M A Abdul Hakhim made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by 22-year-old Safwan Muhamed Sherif seeking the unfreezing of his Federal Bank account. The Court found that explanations offered by the petitioner regarding transactions in the account were unsupported by documents and also questioned the conduct of his counsel in attesting the affidavit despite having access to material that contradicted the claims.
Court flags false claims
The bank told the Court that it had received five requests from investigating agencies to freeze Sherif’s account in connection with transactions involving ₹21 lakh. The account, opened in January 2023, had initially seen little activity. However, from May 15 that year, credit and debit transactions exceeding ₹50 lakh were routed through it within about 15 days, following which the bank received notices from multiple law-enforcement agencies.
Sherif had not initially disclosed details about his employment or income. In a subsequent affidavit, however, he claimed that he was a working partner in two businesses, drawing monthly salaries of ₹35,000 and ₹40,000 in addition to a share in profits. He also claimed that the bank account was used primarily for business and that customers regularly transferred money into it.
The Court found that no documents had been produced to establish the existence of the two businesses. It also noted that the petitioner had failed to satisfactorily explain the ₹21 lakh connected with the freeze requests. His bank statement showed that the money credited to the account had been withdrawn, leaving a balance of just ₹1 by June 5, 2023.
Lawyer’s conduct criticised
Against this background, the Court concluded that false statements had been made in the reply affidavit and strongly deprecated the advocate’s decision to attest it. It stressed that lawyers cannot permit clients to place false assertions before courts when documents available to them demonstrate otherwise.
The Court said such conduct undermined the integrity of the judicial process and reminded advocates of their responsibility as officers of the court. It nevertheless decided against initiating action against either the petitioner or his counsel on this aspect, taking their young age into consideration.
The case, however, resulted in more serious consequences for the petitioner. After examining the transactions, the Court concluded that the circumstances indicated that the bank account had been used as a “money mule” account for receiving and transferring suspected proceeds of cyber fraud.
The High Court consequently rejected Sherif’s request to unfreeze the account and directed police to register a criminal case against him under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with organised crime.