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 His right.
In detail, the Public Prosecution referred a defendant to trial for driving a vehicle on the road, under the influence of alcoholic beverages, and did not abide by the traffic signs, rules and manners set 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 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 through cassation, pointing out that the verdict wasted the judicial defendant's confession, and did not recognize his confession in the investigations of the Public Prosecutor in driving the vehicle, which is very intoxicated.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the prosecution's appeal, explaining that while the trial court may acquit whenever it doubts whether the accusation is correct or that there is insufficient evidence to prove it, it is conditional that its verdict should include evidence that it has examined the case and took its circumstances and the evidence on which the accusation was based. For the foresight and insight, and balanced them with the evidence of exile, the defense of the accused or internalized the suspicion of the validity of the elements of evidence.
She pointed out that the constant access to the blogs of the appeal judgment that he filed 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 confessed in all stages of the lawsuit to drink alcohol Driving under the influence of alcohol is sufficient to prove the two counts.