The “Supreme Federal” is invalidated

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that decreed an appeal against a defendant against the ruling of the first degree that he was convicted of stealing a mobile phone and imprisoning him for a month, as the court indicated that the accused was unable to implement before the appeal session, given his presence inside the prison, according to an official certificate, and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for her consideration Again.

The Public Prosecution was assigned to the accused the charge of seizing lost money, which is a mobile phone owned by another person with his own possession, and referred him to trial, demanding that he be punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 405 of the Federal Penal Code No. 3 of 1987 and its amendments.

The first instance court ruled in absentia to condemn the accused with the charge assigned to him and punish him for one month. After the opposition to the ruling, the court ruled that the opposition was considered as if the absence sentence was not against him, and that the accused was convicted of the charge assigned to him, and he was sentenced to his imprisonment for one month.

After submitting an appeal against the ruling, the Court of Appeal ruled that the appeal submitted by the accused had not been submitted for implementation before the session specified for the appeal. The ruling was not accepted by the accused, and he appealed it, and the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum in which it requested the ruling that it is not permissible to appeal because the opposition was not opposed to the contested absence judgment.

The defendant stated in his appeal that «the ruling of the appeal violated the law and made a mistake in its application, because the court ruled that his appeal was not submitted to implementation before the August 10 2014 session specified for the appeal, although he was unable to attend, as he was a prisoner on this date, as is fixed One of the certificates issued by the General Administration of Punitive Institutions, and was not announced in this session, or is brought from prison, which defects the obligatory ruling.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the accused, indicating that Article (238) of the Criminal Procedure Law states that “the appeal filed by the accused sentenced to a punishment restricted to freedom falls if he does not submit for implementation before the session specified for the appeal, and that it is decided that the ruling on the fall of the appeal accordingly. For this article, the appellant has announced the session specified for the appeal, and that his failure to implement before the session specified to consider the appeal due to a compulsive excuse ».

She pointed out that «the indication of the case papers is that the defendant’s lawyer made a memo before the court issued the appeal ruling, in which he prompted that his client did not attend the first session, due to the lack of notification of its date, and because of his presence inside the prison on the date of this session, as is fixed from the certificate issued by the Director of the General Administration For the punitive and reformist institutions, in which he testifies that the accused was the prison removal from the date of May 14, 2014 until the date of this certificate, but the court ruled – despite this – the fall of the accused’s appeal, for not submitting the implementation before the first session specified for the appeal, which deaf its ruling to violate The right to defense, and by the failure to cause it, which requires its veto, provided that it is with the referral veto.