Federal Supreme Council referred the case to "appeal."
Trial of 5 defendants accused of forced bank robbery
The Federal Supreme Court overturned a prison sentence and fine for five defendants accused of coercive bank robbery, referring their case to the Court of Appeal for further consideration, on the basis that the court of first instance re-indicted the accusation without realizing that the description amending the accusation does not apply to the reality of the case .
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred three defendants to the court, charging them, and two others, unidentified, with the accusation of stealing cash sums owned by one of the banks, and that was by threatening to use a weapon, and charged one of the accused with disguises, disguised as a woman, to participate in the theft. Demand to be punished.
The Court of First Instance in presence ruled a 15-year prison sentence and a fine of 50 thousand dirhams for each one of them, and their deportation from the country after the implementation of the punishment, and in absentia for two of the accused with life imprisonment and a fine of 50 thousand dirhams for each of them, and their deportation from the state after the implementation of the punishment and their binding Pay court fees, and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Two of the defendants did not accept this ruling, so we challenged it before the Federal Supreme Court, as their defense said that the verdict violated the law, as it condemned the defendants to a sinful incident according to the text in Article 384 of the Federal Penal Code and its amendments, although the incident in question did not occur in Public road or means of transportation, which requires the application of Article 365 of the same law, which is the article contained in the indictment, and that the court of first instance has modified the conditioning to something more severe without notifying the accused, and without having the elements of the crime according to the description the average.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld this appeal, noting that it was evident from the papers that the court of first instance re-indicted the accused after amending the theft from Article 385 to 384 of the Federal Penal Code and its amendments, without realizing that the description amended to the accusation does not apply On the reality of the case, because the text of Article 384 of the same law requires that theft occur on a public road, or on a land, sea, or air transport means, in violation of Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and without notifying the defendants of this change according to the text of the article The aforementioned, and it was upheld by the judgment of appeal despite a similar error in the law, which necessitates its reversal, provided that it is with the cassation and the referral.
A court of first instance re-indicted, after amending theft from Article 385 to 384 of the Federal Penal Code.