The Criminal Court of Appeals in Ras Al Khaimah ruled in favor of the first-degree verdict of punishing an Asian accused with five years imprisonment, for accusing him of drug addiction to his friend (an Asian) and making him use it without his knowledge. After carrying out the punishment.
A lieutenant in the Anti-Narcotics Department of Ras Al-Khaimah Police testified that the first defendant confessed to hashish use, and by searching his vehicle a piece of hashish was found, and that the second defendant admitted in the investigations of possessing the cannabis drug seized in his vehicle for the purpose of abuse.
The witness pointed out that the second accused stated that his friend (the first accused) had given him a cigarette with hashish drug without his knowledge, and after smoking it it was found that it contained an anesthetic.
The officer pointed out that the investigations confirmed the validity of the decision of the second defendant that the first accused inserted the drug in the cigarette provided to the victim without his knowledge that it contained the drug hashish.
According to the report of the criminal laboratory in Ras Al Khaimah, according to the case papers, samples from the defendants' urine contain the presence of the Indian cannabis drug (hashish).
The defense attorney for the second defendant said before the court that the procedures for controlling her client were marred by nullity in the application of the law, and invalid in the prosecutor’s permit issued for arrest and search, because permission to search is one of the investigation procedures that it is legally valid to issue only to control a crime that has already occurred and the issuance of permission to control a future crime is not valid If serious investigations and indications were made, it would indeed happen.
She explained that she was stabbed by first instance ruling because there was no crime that occurred from the appellant when the Public Prosecution issued an inspection warrant, because the search warrant was issued based on what the officer decided that the accused and his colleague would transfer a quantity of the drug outside the city of Ras Al Khaimah, because the ruling had condemned the appellant without that A statement shall be presented as to whether the drug and his colleague's attainment of the drug was prior to the issuance of the search warrant or later. Accordingly, the ruling shall be marred by deficiencies and errors in applying the law.
After completing all the procedures, the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to accept the appeal in form and rejected it in the matter, and to support the first instance ruling.