The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecution against a reduced sentence on a person accused of taking psychotropic substances from six months imprisonment to a fine of 6000 dirhams, stressing that it is not permissible to impose the penalty prescribed in the law against narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
In detail, the Public Prosecutor referred a defendant to trial for abuse of a psychotropic substance (methamphetamine) in other than legally authorized cases, demanding that it be punished in accordance with the provisions of Federal Law No. 14 of 1995 on combating narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The court of first instance ruled that the defendant should be imprisoned for three months for the charge, obliging him to charge the lawsuit of 50 dirhams. The Court of Appeal ruled to amend the sentence by punishing the defendant with a fine of 6000 dirhams for the charge and charged him with the fees. Denunciation.
The Public Prosecution said in its appeal that «the ruling erred in the application of the law and the use of extenuating circumstances and excuses, contrary to the provision of article (65) of the Law on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances that do not allow the punishment imposed by the application of this law, which is flawed and must be reversed.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, stating that it is legally prescribed, and in accordance with the provisions of article 40 of Law 14 of 1995 concerning the control of narcotic substances, that “any person who abuses in any way or possesses a penalty of imprisonment for a period of not less than six months and not exceeding two years”. For the purpose of abuse or use in person, other than the authorized conditions, any narcotic substance or psychotropic substance stipulated in tables 3, 6, 7 and 8 annexed to this law. ”Article 65 of the same law states that“ no penalty shall be imposed. In accordance with this law, ”which means that the legislator has set the minimum provisions in this law Penalty and its upper limit, it is not permissible to get off the penalty prescribed by any of the reasons to get off.
She pointed out that the appeal judgment condemned the defendant for the crime of abuse of psychotropic substances provided for in Article 40, and this article set the minimum penalty for imprisonment for a period of not less than six months, while punishing the accused accused of a fine of 6000 dirhams for what was assigned, that is, he was sentenced In article 40 above, he has erred in the application of the law, which must be partially overturned in respect of the penalty imposed, stressing that the assessment of the punishment of the jurisdiction of the trial court within the limits required by law.
The court concluded by referring the case to the Court of Appeal to assess the sentence within the limits prescribed by law.