Appeal in Cassation No. 673 of 2019 Penal
Issued on 14/01/2020
Court Panel: Presided by Judge Mohammed Abdul Rahman Al Jarrah - Chief Judge of the Circuit - with the membership of judges Mohammed Ahmed Abdul Qader and Abdul Hak Ahmed Yammine.
1- The Court shall consider the incident as stated in the documents without adhering to the legal description made by the Public Prosecution concerning the act assigned to the Defendant and does not adhere to the indictment of the Articles of the Law that the Public Prosecution had requested the punishment of the Defendant thereunder.
2- The Court ruling non-jurisdiction thereof when it is proved in the facts that the material incident of the crime stated in the indictment report does not fall within its jurisdiction.
3- Validity of the contested judgment ruling non-jurisdiction of the Court and return of the documents to the Public Prosecution, to refer the case to the Misdemeanour Court, as the victim is a doctor, considered an employee having a normal civil profession and is not a member of the police or security force.
Description of the accusation. Trial Court “its authority in changing the description of the accusation”. “Qualitative” jurisdiction. Judgment “valid causation.” Reversal “of the non-accepted grounds”.
- The Court does not adhere to the legal description made by the Public Prosecution concerning the act assigned to the Defendant and does not adhere to the indictment of the Articles of the Law that the Public Prosecution had requested the punishment of the Defendant thereunder. However, by looking at the reality of the incident as stated in the documents, it adhered to the material incident stated in the indictment report.
- The rules regulating the Court’s jurisdiction to settle a specific type of crimes. Result. Proof of jurisdiction of this Court to settle these crimes. When it is proved in the facts that the material incident of this crime stated in the indictment report does not fall within its jurisdiction. Ruling non-jurisdiction.
- Example.
Whereas it is prescribed, in the jurisdiction of this Court, that the Court does not adhere to the legal description made by the Public Prosecution concerning the act assigned to the Defendant and does not adhere to the indictment of the Articles of the Law that the Public Prosecution had requested the punishment of the Defendant thereunder. However, by looking at the reality of the incident as stated in the documents, it adhered to the material incident stated in the indictment report. Whereas it is prescribed that the rules governing the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate a specific type of crimes, shall prove jurisdiction of such Court to decide on these crimes, and when it is proved in the facts that the material incident of the crime stated in the indictment report does not fall within its jurisdiction, then it shall rule non-jurisdiction.
Therefore, whereas the contested judgment had confirmed the appealed judgment and ruled non-jurisdiction and return of the documents to the Public Prosecution, to refer the case to the Misdemeanour Court, after considering that the victim is a doctor, considered an employee having a normal civil profession and is not a member of the police or security force. Then it is valid according to the Law and the objection made by the Public Prosecution is groundless and the appeal in cassation shall be rejected.
The Court,
Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and the documents - the Public Prosecution accused the Respondent that on 23/09/2017 at Sharjah Directorate,
1- He attacked the Civil Servant ..................... while performing his job, as he threw the seal at him as stated in the investigations.
2- He publicly insulted the above-mentioned civil servant with the expressions stated in the documents during the performance of his job, as stated in the documents.
It requested his punishment under the provisions of the Islamic Sharia’a and Articles 9/1, 249/2 and 373/2 of the Federal Penal Code.
On 30/04/2019, the Court of First Instance ruled non-jurisdiction and to return the documents of the case to the Public Prosecution to take legal procedures as prescribed, to refer the case to the Misdemeanour Court for jurisdiction.
The Public Prosecution appealed this judgment under no. 1381 of 2019.
- On 07/08/2019, the Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in the form and in the merits: to reject it and confirm the appealed Court. This judgment was not accepted by the Public Prosecution so it appealed it under this appeal in cassation.
Whereas the Public Prosecution objects to the contested judgment for violation of the Law and erring in the implementation thereof, as it confirmed the appealed judgment and ruled non-jurisdiction on the basis that the victim is not a member of the security or police personnel, despite the fact that the victim works as a doctor at the penal and correctional facility in Sharjah at the Ministry of Interior, then paragraph 2 of Article 249 shall be applied, which renders the judgment defective and shall be reversed.
Whereas the objection is not valid, as it is prescribed, in the jurisdiction of this Court, that the Court does not adhere to the legal description made by the Public Prosecution concerning the act assigned to the Defendant and does not adhere to the indictment of the Articles of the Law that the Public Prosecution had requested the punishment of the Defendant thereunder. However, by looking at the reality of the incident as stated in the documents, it adhered to the material incident stated in the indictment report.
Whereas it is prescribed that the rules governing the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate a specific type of crimes, shall prove jurisdiction of such Court to decide on these crimes, and when it is proved in the facts that the material incident of the crime stated in the indictment report does not fall within its jurisdiction, then it shall rule non-jurisdiction.
Therefore, whereas the contested judgment had confirmed the appealed judgment and ruled non-jurisdiction and return of the documents to the Public Prosecution, to refer the case to the Misdemeanour Court, after considering that the victim is a doctor, considered an employee having a normal civil profession and is not a member of the police or security force. Then it is valid according to the Law and the objection made by the Public Prosecution is groundless and the appeal in cassation shall be rejected.

* * *