The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that convicted a defendant of possessing movables from a company, which was stolen by two other defendants, who decided to refer the case to the Appeals Court for further consideration.
The Public Prosecution referred the accused and others to the criminal trial and was charged with possession of movables belonging to a company, in circumstances that led to the belief that the source was unlawful, while the other defendants were charged with embezzlement, and delivered to them by way of agency, to the detriment of the right holder.
A court of first instance in absentia convicted the defendants and punished them with three months imprisonment for the charge assigned to them and ordered their deportation from the country after the execution of the punishment, and to punish the accused with possession of embezzled movables, in presence of a fine of 3000 dirhams, and the defendant was not satisfied with this ruling and appealed against it. The defense of the defendant said that the ruling was wrong in applying the law and violating the right to defense, as he stuck before the court of the first and second degrees that the lawsuit precedent to the ruling on it was not permissible to order that the criminal case was not brought before him by the Public Prosecution’s decision to save the complaint administratively against it, which prevents him from returning again To the investigation or to be brought to trial for the same incident, however, the ruling turned away from this essential defense and did not respond to it, which is flawed and must be reversed.
The Supreme Federal Court upheld the defendant’s appeal, explaining that the evidence report is from the authority of the trial court and is not obliged to respond independently to all the defense’s claims and what he raises as long as the reasons for the judgment are leading to what he ended up with and they have a fixed origin in the papers, but this is conditional on that She had not overlooked a defense or an application submitted to her as a matter of assertion, and it would have changed the face of the opinion in the case if she had researched and investigated it, and that the essential defense, which may change in his research, the face of the opinion in the case, the court must present to him and install him the right to respond, otherwise Its rule was flawed by the null and void palaces and the violation of the right to tambourine Know what to set aside.