Retrial a person driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecution against an acquittal of a defendant in a case of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for further consideration, noting that the defendant confessed in all stages of the lawsuit to drink alcohol and driving under his influence and is sufficient to prove the charge .

In detail, the prosecution referred an accused to trial for driving a vehicle on the road, under the influence of alcoholic beverages, and did not adhere to the traffic signs and rules and ethics established to regulate traffic, causing a sudden deviation on other vehicles, demanding punishment.

The first instance court found the defendant guilty of one month in prison for driving under the influence of alcohol, and a fine of 300 dirhams for the charge of non-compliance with traffic signs, and then the Court of Appeal acquitted the accused of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and upheld the first sentence otherwise.

The Public Prosecution did not accept this verdict and challenged it by cassation, pointing out that the verdict wasted the judicial defendant's confession, and did not recognize his admission to the investigation of the Public Prosecution to drive the vehicle.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the prosecution, explaining that while the trial court may acquit whenever it doubts the validity of the charge against the accused or the insufficient evidence to prove, however, it is conditional that its verdict should include evidence that it examined the case and took its circumstances and the evidence on which the accusation was based. On the basis of insight and insight and balanced them with the evidence of the exile, the defense of the accused or the inside of them was suspicious of the validity of the elements of proof.

She pointed out that the constant of access to the blogs of the appeal judgment that he had established his court acquitted the accused on charges of drinking alcohol and driving under the influence of alcohol based on the fact that his confession is contrary to the fact that there is no technical report to prove drinking alcohol, while the defendant has admitted in all stages of the lawsuit drinking For alcohol and driving under the influence of alcohol, it is sufficient to prove the two counts mentioned.