JUDGMENT 1. A Petitioner is an Advocate who was appearing for the accused in C.C. No. 1388 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. Ext. P1 is a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- issued to him by the said Magistrate. The amount represented the security which the accused represented by the petitioner had deposited in court. The amount has now become refundable to the accused. The cheque Ext. P1 was therefore issued to the accused's counsel, namely the petitioner. The cheque is dated 13-1-1992. It was presented for encashment at the Sub Treasury at Ernakulam on 15-1-1992 when the petitioner was informed that payment could not be made in view of the order of suspension of payment of cheques issued by respondents 1 and 2, namely the State, and the Director of Treasuries. An endorsement slip was accordingly issued to the petitioner on 17-1-1992, a copy of which is Ext. P2. The petitioner has filed this original petition for direction to the respondents to honour the cheque as and when presented 2. The learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the respondents on receipt of a copy of the original petition. He points out that government has imposed a "treasury ban" with effect from 26-11-1991, and all payments except in respect of certain items of expenditure, one of which is "court decrees (including Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Award)". The 3rd respondent Sub Treasury Officer was of the opinion that the cheque was not issued pursuant to any "court decree" and accordingly declined to honour it, taking shelter under the "treasury ban". 3. The amount in question does not belong to the respondents. It is the amount deposited by the accused in C.C. No. 138 of 1988 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam as cash security for his being released on bail. Consequent on the closure of the case, the amount became refundable to the accused. It was his money deposited for a specific purpose. It was liable to be refunded to him.. The court ordered so and issued the cheque. It is not open to any of the respondents to interdict payment of such amounts directed to be paid by virtue of orders of court. An order of court is liable to be implemented. The cheque was issued for amount in the custody and control of the Court. The court ordered so and issued the cheque. It is not open to any of the respondents to interdict payment of such amounts directed to be paid by virtue of orders of court. An order of court is liable to be implemented. The cheque was issued for amount in the custody and control of the Court. A refusal to honour the cheque will tantamount to interference with the judicial process, the functioning of the courts and their orders. This is improper and cannot be allowed. The amount in question became refundable consequent on the closure of the case C.C. No. 138 of 1988 and the Magistrate did what he was expected to do, to refund the amount. Any order of the court is liable to be honoured by the respondents, particularly when the amount is in court deposit and has not gone into the composite revenues of the State or the consolidated fund. The term "court decrees" in the order of "Treasury ban" has to be read in this background as including payments made pursuant to an order of court or cheques issued by the court. Otherwise the courts will be left powerless in relation to such matters and be at the mercy of the treasury officials - quite an undesirable situation. The original petition is therefore allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to honour the cheque Ext. P1 as and when it presented for encashment by the petitioner. Allowed.