A retrial of an accused person accused of using psychotropic substances

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that acquitted the accused in the incident of consuming psychotropic substances, and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for its consideration again, for lack of evidence of the evidence on which the accusation was based.

In the details, the Public Prosecution referred an accused to trial on charges of possessing psychotropic substances in cases other than those legally authorized for the purpose of abuse, demanding that he be punished in accordance with the articles of the Federal Law on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and the Eighth Schedule attached to the law.

The court of first instance in presence ruled to punish the accused by fining him an amount of 2000 dirhams for what was assigned to him and ordered him to be deported from the state after the execution of the punishment, confiscation of the seized items, and obligated him to pay the criminal case fee, then the Appeals Court ruled his innocence, and the Public Prosecution appealed this ruling.

The Public Prosecution said in its appeal that the verdict contradicted the proven documents, as it was not presented to discuss the evidences and did not explain the reasons on which it relied, and did not examine the accusation evidence in the case.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld this appeal, affirming that it is decided that the court of the matter will have the right to rule the innocence of the accused when it doubts the validity of attribution of the accusation to the accused, or the lack of evidence, but this is conditional on that its judgment includes what indicates that the court examined the case She took note of her circumstances, and the evidences on which the accusation was based with insight and insight, and weighed them with the evidence of the exclusion, so that the defendant's defense or her innate intrusion into the validity of the evidence was preferred.

The court indicated that the contested judgment ruled innocence of the accused on the basis of the lack of legal elements of the crime without indicating what evidence was based on the accusation, and its reasons were shrouded in vagueness and ambiguity, what defects it in the impotent shortcomings of the Court of Cassation to properly enforce its supervision, which is required With him revocation and referral.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news