ORDER : 1. This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for recalling order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure A/3) passed in Criminal Appeal No.3324/1999 (Ganesh Rao Shindey v. State of M.P.). 2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner’s husband Ganesh Rao Shendey, now deceased, was convicted by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No.11/92 and vide judgment dated 06.12.1999 (Annexure A/1), he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 03 months simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 3. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 06.12.1999, Ganesh Rao Shendey filed a criminal appeal bearing No.3324/1999 before this Court. However, during the pendency of the said appeal, unfortunately, he died on 16.09.2016 and when his appeal came up before a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 12.01.2018, the learned State Counsel reported that he has died and his death certificate along with report of the TI, Police Station, Basna were also filed in support of the same. Accordingly, it was recorded that since the sole appellant Ganesh Rao Shendey has died and none of his near relative has applied within the limitation period to continue the appeal and, therefore, the criminal appeal was disposed of as having been abated. Now, his wife has preferred this CRMP under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for recalling order dated 12.01.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3324/1999 stating that since it is a case of a composite sentence of imprisonment as well as fine, therefore, in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC 45 , the appeal could not have been disposed of as having been abated and as such, the aforesaid appeal should be restored for hearing in accordance with law. 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that since the petitioner herein did not approach this Court within the period of limitation to continue the appeal, therefore, the appeal has rightly been disposed of as having been abated. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the material available on records with utmost circumspection. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the material available on records with utmost circumspection. 6. The issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra as it has already been adjudicated conclusively by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesan (supra), wherein their Lordships have held in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 & 20 as under :- “14. This Court had occasion to consider the case of a composite sentence of imprisonment as well as fine in Harnam Singh v. State of H.P., (1975) 3 SCC 343 . In the above case, the accused was convicted under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as well as under Section 161 of the Penal Code and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and to a fine of Rs 300. Contention was raised before this Court that since the deceased was not sentenced to pay a fine only but was punished with a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the appeal would abate as regards the sentence of fine also. Such contention was noted in para 4 of the judgment, which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 345) "4. The learned counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh, who are respondents to the appeal, has raised a preliminary objection to the right of the appellant's widow to prosecute the appeal. He contends that the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant Harnam Singh came to an end with his death and therefore the appeal in regard to that sentence stands abated. As regards the sentence of fine, it is contended that since the deceased appellant was not sentenced to pay a fine only but was punished with a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the appeal would abate as regards the sentence of fine also. According to the learned counsel this Court may, at the highest, set aside the sentence of fine if it finds that the appellant need not have been asked to pay a fine. But the order of conviction and the substantive sentence must remain and the legality or propriety of that order cannot any longer be questioned in view of the death of the appellant." 15. But the order of conviction and the substantive sentence must remain and the legality or propriety of that order cannot any longer be questioned in view of the death of the appellant." 15. Rejecting the above submission, this Court laid down that if by the judgment under appeal a sentence of fine is imposed either singularly or in conjunction with a sentence of imprisonment, the appeal against conviction would be an appeal from a sentence of fine within the meaning of Section 431. In para 10, the following was laid down : "10. The narrow question which then requires to be considered is whether an appeal from a composite order of sentence combining the substantive imprisonment with fine is for the purposes of Section 431 not an appeal from a sentence of fine. It is true that an appeal from a composite order of sentence is ordinarily directed against both the substantive imprisonment and the fine. But, such an appeal does not for that reason cease to be an appeal from a sentence of fine. It is something more not less than an appeal from a sentence of fine only and it is significant that the parenthetical clause of Section 431 does not contain the word "only". To limit the operation of the exception contained in that clause so as to take away from its purview appeals directed both against imprisonment and fine is to read into the clause the word "only" which is not there and which, by no technique of interpretation may be read there. The plain meaning of Section 431 is that every criminal appeal abates on the death of the accused "except an appeal from a sentence of fine". The section for its application requires that the appeal must be directed to the sentence of fine and not that it must be directed to that sentence only. If by the judgment under appeal a sentence of fine is imposed either singularly or in conjunction with a sentence of imprisonment, the appeal against conviction would be an appeal from a sentence of fine within the meaning of Section 431. All that is necessary is that a sentence of fine should have been imposed on the accused and the appeal filed by him should involve the consideration of the validity of that sentence." 16. All that is necessary is that a sentence of fine should have been imposed on the accused and the appeal filed by him should involve the consideration of the validity of that sentence." 16. The above judgment categorically laid down that even if sentence of fine is imposed along with the sentence of imprisonment under Section 431, such appeal shall not abate. The similar expression, which was used in Section 431 i.e. "except an appeal from the sentence of fine" has been used in Section 394 CrPC. Thus, the appeal in the present case where the accused was sentenced for imprisonment as well as for fine has to be treated as an appeal against fine and was not to abate and the High Court did not commit any error in deciding the appeal on merits. xxx 20. Although, we have upheld the view of the High Court that appeal filed by the accused was not to abate and was required to be heard and decided on merits but there is one aspect of hearing of the appeal before the High Court, which needs to be noted. From the judgment of the High Court, it does not appear that after the death of the appellant-accused, his legal heirs were given opportunity to proceed with the appeal against the sentence of fine. The judgment of the High Court does not also mention that any counsel has appeared for the legal heirs. The High Court ought to have given an opportunity to the legal heirs of the accused to make their submissions against the sentence of fine, which fine could have been very well recovered from the assets of the accused in the hands of the legal heirs.” 7. In that view of the matter, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Harnam Singh (supra), followed in the matter of Ramesan (supra), it is held that since a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine was imposed, the appeal could not have been disposed of as abated on the death of the accused/appellant therein and the petitioner herein is entitled to continue the appeal. As such, order dated 12.01.2018 is hereby recalled and Criminal Appeal No.3324/1999 (Ganesh Rao Shindey v. State of M.P.) is restored for its hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 8. As such, order dated 12.01.2018 is hereby recalled and Criminal Appeal No.3324/1999 (Ganesh Rao Shindey v. State of M.P.) is restored for its hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No cost(s).