The Federal Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a sentence of life imprisonment and expulsion from the State after conviction for possessing and trafficking in psychotropic substances, confirming the availability of evidence of the crime.
The Department of Narcotics Control received information that a person possessed a quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and wanted to sell them. The Public Prosecutor's Office was then taken to arrest the accused with the crime, to provide the police source with 600 dirhams and to photograph the money. Where he met the accused and the source, and after the sale was seized with the defendant in possession of the amount, recognizing that the value of three packs of psychotropic substances, and searched his home was found tablets of psychotropic substances.
The prosecution referred the accused to trial, charged with importing mental stimuli for the purpose of trafficking and possessing psychotropic substances for the purpose of trafficking, to be punished in accordance with the Federal Law on the Control of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
The Court of First Instance unanimously sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and fined him 50,000 dirhams for the two charges assigned to him for association, confiscation of the seizures, expulsion of the accused from the State after the penalty was imposed and the legally prescribed duty.
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first degree, and the verdict was not accepted by the accused, and challenged him before the Federal Supreme Court, and the Public Prosecutor's Office submitted a memorandum of opinion, in which he requested his rejection.
The defendant's defense said that "the sentence convicted his client of the crime of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, without indicating the availability of the criminal intent of this crime, and the arrest and search procedures are flawed because of the lack of seriousness of the investigations, in addition to the invalidity of the investigation record with his client, Without an interpreter, and the sentence violated the right of defense, where he convicted the accused even though the crime was fabricated by the secret source, which is the friend of the accused, which means the absence of the crime, and the sentence turned away from the defendant's defense that brought the narcotics was legal, Bring them for treatment, and gave a prescription so ».
The court charged the defendant with the police's fabrication of the crime, stating that "if the warrant officers are authorized to perform a warrant and search, they are supposed to take what they deem sufficient to achieve its purpose, without committing to a specific route, as long as they do not go out in their proceedings On the law. Therefore, the officer in charge of the seizure should not be tricked if the accused is caught by the secret source who used him for this purpose, denying that the incident is inflammatory, or that it was created by the men of control, , Which is consistent with the law.
She pointed out that "it is clear from the papers that the police investigation indicated that the accused by virtue of his work sells psychotropic substances and accordingly issued a warrant for his arrest. In order to verify the validity of these investigations, the secret source was provided with a financial amount to buy a quantity of grain. Which arrested the defendant and possession of the amount photographed by the police, and the defendant admitted that he brought the effects from an Asian country, to sell to the source, and therefore the alleged fabrication of the police crime is obsolete, and must be denied obituary.
The Court affirmed that "it is a decision in the jurisdiction of this court to assess the adequacy of the criminal evidence of convictions of the substantive issues, in which the Court of the subject is not subject to a review by the Federal Supreme Court, when the assessment is fluid and does not violate the law."
She pointed out that "the ruling of the first degree of the advocate by virtue of appeal, between the facts of the case after he took it out of sight and insight, having all the legal elements of the crime condemned by the accused, and provided evidence on the right evidence to the correct owner of the lawsuit, To lead to the ruling, after making sure that the accused committed the offense assigned to him, including the words of the men of the arrest, and the report of the forensic doctor, which is sufficient evidence to form the doctrine of the Court ».
The accused admitted that he brought the influences from an Asian country.