' MUHAMAMD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---In this case leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 4-2- 1990. The learned Judges inter alia observed: "We were not inclined to grant leave on merits as the 2 Courts below have appraised the evidence and have drawn proper conclusions therefrom. However, Mr. Q.M. Salim, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were not given the option in terms of subsection (2) of section 340, Cr.P.C. To appear as their own witnesses and therefore, according to learned ASC, because of the above omission the trial of the petitioners was vitiated."
2. Mr. Q.M. Salim, counsel for the appellant has reiterated the above ground before us. The perusal of the record, however, reveals that the appellants were asked whether they wanted to make a statement on oath under section 340 (2) of the Cr.P.C. To which they replied in negaitve.
Confronted with this situation the learned counsel stated that some evidence was recorded after the said stage therefore, it was incumbent on the Court to have asked the accused again whether he wanted to make a statement on oath. The submission has no force. In Ameer Khatun's case (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 787) the Court held:- "If in any case, there has been omission to inform the accused that he had been conferred such a right, it will not make much difference because even prior to this amendment he had a right whereunder he could in writing opt to make a statement on oath. The pre-existing right already being there, with the only difference that now a duty is cast on the Court to elicit the option from the accused, m substance there is not much difference. Hence, no case of any prejudice, retrial or re-examination of the accused in such cases arises unless the facts of the case make it necessary."
The learned counsel has not been able to show that the accused were in any way prejudiced in their defence. The leave is, therefore, withdrawn and the petition is dismissed.