This appeal under section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, here­inafter the Code, is from the order dated 5.1.94 passed by Shri H, Kamini Kumar Singh, Special Judge, Manipur East, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 1993 of Special Trial Case No. 10 of 1985/14 of 1991 allowing the accused respondent to withdraw the money which he deposited in SB Account No. 8849 of Manipur State Co-operative Bank at Imphal. 2. So far as the accused respondent is concerned, the prosecution case in short was this : By committing fraud on the Government the accused respondent obtained a bank draft, bearing Code No. 0092 H 779006, for Rs. 1,00,000/- and deposited that bank draft in his SB Account No. 8849 of Manipur State Co-operative Bank, Imphal, on 11.2.82. After the deposit he withdrew part of the amount; so the balance which remained is Rs.33,000/-only, 3. The IO did not seize the pass book from the respondent; but seized the relevant paper from the bank He submitted a charge sheet under section 465/ 420/471 IPC against the respondent. The case was registered as Special Trial Case No. 10/85/14/91 in the Court of Special Judge, Manipur, who thereupon framed charge under the said sections. During trial of the case, respondent wanted to withdraw the remaining balance of Rs. 33,000/- but the Bank then told him that the Superintendent of Police had directed them not to allow the withdrawal unless he (respondent) obtained permission from the trial Court. Respondent then filed application before the trial Court praying for permission to withdraw. Relying on a decision of certain High Court reported in (I) Crime at page 525 which was placed by defence counsel, the trial Court passed the impugned order giving him the permission to withdraw. Hence this appeal by the prosecution. 4. Mr. Munindrakurnar Singh, learned PP for CBI, contended that the order passed by the trial Court is unfair to the prosecution and is plainly illegal inasmuch as, the prosecution's clear case was that it was part of the amount which the respondent obtained by fraud and that in the event of conviction the Government would be entitled to get it under section 452 of the Code. Mr. Binoykumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent suppo­rted the impugned order by relying on the same decision i.e the decision reported in (I) Crime at page 525. Mr. Binoykumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent suppo­rted the impugned order by relying on the same decision i.e the decision reported in (I) Crime at page 525. I have not read the decision; but even without reading I do not think that the facts of the present case would be the same or atlas similar to the facts in that decision. 5. In passing the impugned order the trial Court did not record what argument was addressed by the PP before it. But in view of the facts of prosecution case, it would appear that if the respondent is convicted the Government would be entitled to get the money from the account of the res­pondent. The respondent would be entitled to get it only if he is acquitted of the charges. It was, therefore, illegal to allow the respondent to withdraw the amount during the trial of the case. Such a case only comes under section 452 of the Code and, therefore, the trial Court could pass proper order only at the conclusion of the trial. 6. I, therefore, find sufficient merit in this appeal. Accordingly I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge Manipur, in Criminal Misc Case No. 36 of 1993.