The court ruled that the check was taken from him by means of threats and coercion and that he opened a criminal communication in the police station, but the verdict did not respond to his defense, For the Court to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.
In detail, the Public Prosecution referred a person to trial, after being charged with giving in bad faith a check for which there was no existing and retractable obligation to be punished.
The Court of First Instance sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment for the charge, and the Court of Appeal amended the sentence to one year imprisonment. The prosecution did not bow to the verdict, and the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of opinion in which it concluded that the decision was reversed and that the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for consideration by a different body.
The defendant said in the appeal that the sentence erred in the application of the law, as he turned the response to the fundamental defense he had shown, that the check subject of the case was taken by threat and coercion and that he opened a criminal communication in the police station, based on his statements to the surveillance cameras located in the place of the incident . He confirmed that there were no commercial transactions between him and the complainant to give him a check for such a large sum. The court also turned down his request to summon the witnesses of the exile. Moreover, the judgment did not respond to the claim that the court had no jurisdiction.
And the Supreme Court of Justice supported it, explaining that the judgment must contain in itself the reassuring of the insider that the court has examined the evidence submitted to it, the requests and the substantive defenses presented to it, and in doing so, all the means that reach it to what it considers the reality and the truth in the case, And that the fundamental defense, which may change by examining the point of view in the indictment, the court must offer him and his right to retaliate, otherwise its ruling would be deficient in failure and breach of the right of defense, which must be revoked.
She pointed out that the accused maintained his defense that he did not give up the check subject matter of the lawsuit and put it to circulation of his will, and that it occurred under the influence of coercion and opened a criminal statement in this regard. Since this defense was essential, the court had to compensate him for his right to be examined and checked for his health.
She pointed out that if the defense, if true, lead to change the face of opinion in the case, the judge had to pay the right of research and scrutiny to reach the point. The proof of the papers and the codes of governance that he did not mention the defense, did not achieve, and the reasons for the total, which makes the provision is deficient in the void, and must be revoked with the referral.