ORDER : 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Delay condoned. 3. The application for substitution is allowed. 4. Leave granted. 5. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 797 of 1992. 6. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:- 6.1 Maganbhai Punjabhai Gajjar (now deased) was acquitted by the Special Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special Case No. 4 of 1988 under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1) (d) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6.2 Against the acquittal of the appellant, State of Gujarat filed appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Maganbhai Punjabhai Gajjar, the respondent in the appeal died on 18 December, 2006 during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. 6.3 The High Court was justified in observing that the sole respondent-accused has expired on 18.12.2006 during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Appeal No. 797 of 1992 was ordered to be abated. This part of the judgment is correct but thereafter the Division Bench has observed as under:- “However, at the same time, it is also observed that while disposing of this Appeal as having abated, this Court has not been able to consider the Appeal and impugned judgment and order on merits, in view of the provisions of Section 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, it may not be construed that the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court acquitting the opponent original accused is confirmed on merits. The heirs of the deceased shall not be entitled to consequential other benefits, if any, automatically on disposal of the present Appeal as having abated and consequently confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court (not on merits). The heirs of the deceased accused person shall not be permitted to claim arrears of wages only on the ground that the appeal has been abated on account of death of accused opponent, automatically. At this stage, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. T. Thulasingam and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 405 (Para 83) is required to be referred to.” 7. At this stage, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. T. Thulasingam and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 405 (Para 83) is required to be referred to.” 7. In our considered view, the Division Bench was not justified in making the observation in the aforesaid paragraph 3 of the judgment. To that extent the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The concerned authorities would decide regarding entitlement of any benefit which may be due to the legal heirs of the deceased Maganbhai Punjabhai Gajjar in accordance with their rules and provisions of law. 8. No further orders are necessary. 9. This appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Appeal disposed of.