The Federal Supreme Court rejected a director of a company against an appeals judgment that condemned him for writing a check without a balance of 68 million dirhams in exchange for commercial transactions, confirming that the accused was responsible for issuing the check and not cashing it.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred a defendant to the criminal trial, as he gave, in bad faith, a check in the amount of 68,039,000 dirhams without a valid and withdrawable fulfillment, demanding that he be punished in accordance with Article 401/1 of the Penal Code and Article 643 of the Commercial Transactions Law.
The court of first instance ruled that the defendant was sentenced to three months imprisonment for what was assigned to him and obliged by the fees, then the Court of Appeal ruled to amend the ruling and only to punish the defendant by fining ten thousand dirhams on the charge based on him and obliging him to pay the fees, and the accused did not accept this ruling, and he appealed against it.
In his appeal, the accused said that he is "not responsible for issuing the check, as well as forging the history of the check, and does not meet the conditions required by law for legal protection, as well as that the check issued a security check."
The Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, asserting that the assessment of criminal responsibility is one of the substantive issues in which the trial court adjudicates without punishment as long as its estimation is valid based on acceptable evidence in reason and logic and has its fixed origin in the papers, and it is also decided that the defense that the court must provide The response to it is the fundamental defense that knocks the court’s hearing and the face of the opinion in the case may change, and it is sufficient to respond to the defense that the evidence mentioned in the ruling and evidenced in the accusation prove the implicit response to what the opponent raises.
She indicated that the preliminary ruling corroborating its reasons for the reasons for the appeal judgment was presented to the fact of the case and among its elements and provided sufficient evidence to prove it against the accused, through the complainant’s statements that the accused released the check drawn on the bank in a total amount of 68,039,000 dirhams in exchange for a commercial transaction and upon presentation of the check to the bank was returned Without cashing it because there was no balance, and from the bank’s drawing on it that the check was returned without cashing it because there was no balance and what came from the defendant’s confession that he wrote the check that is the subject of the current lawsuit and the ruling concluded from that to prove the responsibility of the accused for issuing the check and not cashing it and the reasons given by the ruling were sufficient to carry the check A conviction and a response to what the appellant raises in the face of this obituary, which is nothing more than an objective controversy in the authority of the trial court. Understanding the reality and estimating the evidence, which are issues that may not be raised before this court, the matter with which the obituary in these two reasons is not based on reality and the law must be rejected. .