1. ' This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 18-6-1985 passed by the Magistrate Section 30, Lahore acquitting the respondents from charge under section 420/468/471/474, P.P.C.
2. ' Prosecution case in brief is that the respondents filed ejectment petition against one Nasiruddin.
3. During the course of the proceedings Naseeruddin produced an agreement on 26-1-1981 executed on 17-6-1978 under the signature of the respondents wherein it was incorporated that they had received an advance money of Rs,30,000 from aforesaid Nasiruddin while renting out their two shops. The Rent Controller sealed the document. When it was unsealed on 28-1-1992 it was noticed that the signatures of the respondents were interpolated. An enquiry was conducted by the Rent Controller and consequently a case under sections 420/468/471 and 474, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Krishan Nagar on 6-12-1992. After usual investigation challan was submitted.
4. ' Prosecution examined witnesses to establish its case. The learned Magistrate through E order, dated 20-8-1983 acquitted the accused/ respondents by exercising his power under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. On an appeal the High Court remitted the case to the Magistrate who examined two more witnesses. Thereafter, through the impugned judgment he acquitted the respondents. The main point on which this appeal was admitted was to see the fact of the non-compliance of the provisions of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. During the course of trial.
5. ' I have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The aforestated point has lost its efficacy in view of its resolution through case reported as Mst. Amir Khatoon v. Faiz Ahmad and others PLD 1991 SC 787 wherein it has been held that section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Places no compulsion on the accused to make a statement and that the Court can simply ask him whether he would like to make a statement on oath. It has further been held that it is his option and without prejudice to his case to make statement on oath, no adverse inference can be drawn if he does not opt to make a statement.
6. As far as the merit of the case is concerned, there is nothing on record to implicate the respondents with the commission of the offence. The learned trial Magistrate has discussed the entire evidence and no misreading has been pointed out by the learned State counsel. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.