ORDER 1. Brief facts of the case which need to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that one Hindusingh son of Laxman Balai was convicted and sentence for offence punishable under sections 326 and 323 IPC. He preferred Criminal Revision No. 134 of 1989 before this Court. This revision petition was decided on 14.2.92 with a direction that sentence of imprisonment of R.I. for one year for offence punishable under S. 326 IPC be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by said Hindusingh. The sentence of fine was enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/-. Sentence passed against Hindusingh for offence under S. 323 IPC was set aside and he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in lieu of that. Out of the fine realised from him Rs. 2,500/- were directed to be paid to injured Narayansingh by way of compensation. 2. The said Hindusingh died on 5.9.91 and the heirs of Hindusingh are challenging the order of recovery of the amount of fine from them by contending that they have not inherited any property from the said Hindusingh. They are making a prayer that the proceeding for recovery of the amount initiated against them be dropped by invoking powers of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short). A certificate granted by Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Umariabada, Tahsil and District Dhar filed with the petition shows that the said Hindusingh son of Laxman resident of Umariabada had expired on 5.9.91. When this Court passed order in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 1989, the said Hindusingh had already expired. However, it appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court by counsel appearing for the litigating parties. It may be on account of lack of information with them. 3. Had the fact that Hindusingh had expired on 5.9.91 been brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the said revision petition, the Court would have considered whether there was any propriety of passing the order in question. It appears from the order of the Court that keeping in view of the nature of the acts committed by convict Hindusingh, his substantive sentence was reduced. However, the amount of fine was enhanced by maintaining the conviction. It appears from the order of the Court that keeping in view of the nature of the acts committed by convict Hindusingh, his substantive sentence was reduced. However, the amount of fine was enhanced by maintaining the conviction. It indirectly means that this Court found that the order which was being assailed was correct, proper and legal so far as conviction was concerned but was not proper so far as the quantum of the sentence was concerned. 4. Had the fact that Hindusingh had expired before the date of hearing of the revision petition been brought to the notice of this Court, the Court would not have probably enhanced the amount of fine. Even in that event the Court would have taken a decision whether the amount of fine should be recovered from the legal heirs of Hindusingh or not. If the Court would have thought it fit to recover the amount of fine from the legal heirs of Hindusingh, the Court would have initiated a preliminary enquiry for finding out as to who are his legal heirs and whether they had inherited any property from deceased Hindusingh. In that event this Court could have also taken a decision fit in the circumstances. 5. The fact that Hindusingh had expired before the date of hearing of the revision petition was not brought to the notice of this Court when the said revision petition was decided by this Court on 14.9.92 and because of that this undesirable situation has arisen. If the amount of fine is to be recovered from the legal heirs of the deceased convict, it has to be ascertained whether they had inherited any property from the deceased. 6. The amount of Rs. 3,500/- is a significant amount. The petitioners are Balai by caste which has been declared as 'Scheduled Caste' in this State. Being members of Scheduled Caste, prayer of the petitioners needs to be considered sympathetically. In addition to that, they are legal heirs of the convict who had expired before decision of the revision petition. 7. Needless to point out at this stage that when an illegality or perversity of the order passed by subordinate criminal Court is brought to the notice of the High Court by way of revision petition, the High Court is entitled to decide such a revision petition, though such petitioner dies during pendency of such a revision petition. 7. Needless to point out at this stage that when an illegality or perversity of the order passed by subordinate criminal Court is brought to the notice of the High Court by way of revision petition, the High Court is entitled to decide such a revision petition, though such petitioner dies during pendency of such a revision petition. If the fact of death of Hindusingh would have been brought to the notice of the High Court, the High Court could have passed an appropriate order meeting need of the situation and time. 8. The record shows that the petitioners did not inherit any property from deceased Hindusingh, muchless the property sufficient to pay the amount of fine indicated by the order of the High Court in the said revision petition. Payment of compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to victim Narayansingh is coupled with rider of realisation of the amount of fine. If the amount of said fine cannot be realised from the property of deceased convict Hindusingh on account of non-inheritance of the property, how victim Narayansingh could be given the amount of Rs. 2,500/- as directed in the order passed in the aforesaid revision petition. The petitioners cannot be asked to pay that amount of fine from their own property legally because neither they were tried for those offences by the Court nor they were convicted for these offences. They cannot be legally asked to pay fine which deceased Hindusingh was liable to pay for the said offences, committed by him. 9. Thus in view of the situation described above, this Court should invoke inherent powers under the provisions of S. 482 CrPC and set aside the order of recovery of amount of fine passed against deceased Hindusingh son of Laxman Balai. 10. As a result, by invoking inherent powers under S. 482 CrPC the effect of order passed in Cr. R. 134/89 on 14.9.92 in respect of fine stands modified as above, in the interest of justice. Proceeding for recovery of the amount of fine are hereby dropped. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as early as possible.