The first degree ruling punished him with a fine of 20 thousand dirhams
The Federal Supreme Council refers an employee accused of embezzlement to the "appeal"
The Supreme Federal Council supported the prosecution’s appeal against the “appeal” ruling.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecution against a judgment that ruled that a criminal case against an employee accused of embezzlement had expired, as the court confirmed that the case papers were devoid of evidence that the complainant reconciled or waived the case, and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for consideration again.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred an employee to criminal trial on charges of misappropriating sums of money handed over to him by way of agency and owned by the victim, demanding that he be punished according to Article 404/1 of the Federal Penal Code.
The court of the first degree in presence ruled the conviction and punishment of the accused with a fine of 20 thousand dirhams for the accusation against him, and the referral of the case to the civil judiciary regarding the civil part, then the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the first ruling and rule again to the expiry of the criminal case by payment.
The judgment did not find acceptance from the Public Prosecution and appealed against it, explaining that the judgment violated the law and was wrong in its application, as it ruled the expiry of the criminal case based on a document that the accused paid an amount of 5563 dirhams according to a receipt in favor of the complainant and deposited it in the court's treasury, without indicating whether the reconciliation was made. The victim has received it completely, or a waiver has been obtained from the victim who absolves the accused from the crime.
For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that the charge attributed by the Public Prosecution to the accused is breach of trust in accordance with the text of Article 404/1 of the Penal Code, or it was among the crimes that may be waived pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Procedures Law.
She indicated that the case papers were devoid of evidence that the victim had submitted a waiver of the case or a request for reconciliation in it, while the appealed ruling ruled that the criminal case lapsed on the basis that the accused had deposited the court’s treasury an amount of 5563 dirhams according to the receipt of trusts in favor of the complainant, and that the account report proved That he paid an amount of 30,000 dirhams, it would be a mistake in applying the law, as it must be proven that the victim explicitly waived his claim to implement Article 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was not achieved, which necessitates a reversal of the judgment with a referral.
Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news