The Federal Supreme Court rejected the Public Prosecution’s appeal against an appeals judgment that referred a case of a defendant accused of assaulting a doctor to a misdemeanor court, after he considered that the defendant was a doctor, and he is considered one of the employees working in jobs of a civil nature.
The Public Prosecutor had referred a defendant to trial on charges of assaulting a public official while he was carrying out his job, by throwing him with a stamp, and insulting him publicly, demanding that he be punished in accordance with the Federal Penal Code.
A first-degree court ruled not to have jurisdiction, and to return the case papers to the Public Prosecution to take the legal measures prescribed by referring the case to the Misdemeanor Court for jurisdiction, and then the Appeals Court confirmed it, and this ruling was not accepted by the Public Prosecution, and it appealed against the same appeal.
The Public Prosecution said that the ruling violated the law and erred in its application, as it ruled that no jurisdiction was granted on the basis of the fact that the victim was not a member of the security or police services, even though the victim had worked for eight years as a doctor in a penal facility, and therefore the article 249 The second paragraph is applicable, which defects the judgment and necessitates its reversal. ”
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the public prosecutor’s appeal, explaining that “the court does not adhere to the legal description that the public prosecutor bestows on the act attributed to the accused, and does not adhere to the charge sheet from the articles of the law that the public prosecutor requested to punish the accused with its requirements, but by looking at the fact for what it is, as shown by The papers when did you abide by the material fact mentioned in the indictment report, and it was decided that the rules that regulate the jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate a specific type of crime is performed proving the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate these crimes ».
She pointed out that the appeal judgment ruled lack of jurisdiction, and returned the papers to the Public Prosecution to refer the case to the misdemeanor court, after he considered that the defendant is a doctor, and he is considered one of the employees working in jobs of a civilian nature, and he does not belong to the police force, then it is true that the law is true, and thus sacrifices What the Public Prosecution raises in its obituary is not based on what is required of the court to reject the appeal.