- The trial court’s doubts as to the validity of the charge against the accused or the insufficiency of evidence of proof. Sufficient to issue a judgment of acquittal. Provided that its ruling includes an indication to the effect that it has examined the case, thoroughly and carefully, and gained an understanding of its circumstances and the evidence of proof and weighed between the said evidence and that of the prosecution and gave preponderance to the accused's defence or doubted the validity of the elements of the case.

- The penalty for trading in petroleum products without a permit from the competent authorities. Significance thereof?

- A criminal case shall not be initiated for any of the crimes stipulated in Article 15 of Law No. 14 of 2017 on the Trading in Petroleum Products, without a written request from the competent authority.

- It is permissible to reach a reconciliation on the crimes stipulated in the aforementioned Article 15 before referring them to the competent court. In return for paying an amount in excess of the fine prescribed for the crime in accordance with the controls specified by the Council of Ministers.

- Payment of the amount of reconciliation. Its effect: the lapse of the criminal case.

- The contested judgment acquitting the respondents on the grounds that the Public Prosecution initiated the criminal lawsuit against them without a written request from the competent authority and without investigating whether or not the provisions of Article 15 of Law No. 14 of 2017 apply to the incident. Shall be deemed as having erred in the application of the law and contained flaws in inference. Shall be reversed.

Whereas it is prescribed as per the provisions of Article 15 of Law No. 14 of 2017 on Trading in Petroleum Products, that “A fine of no more than AED (500,000) shall be imposed on any licensee who breaches any of the obligations prescribed in Article (13) of the present Law. The same penalty shall be imposed on whoever transports petroleum products in any means of transport that are unlicensed to transport petroleum products or that do not meet any of the licensing conditions approved by the concerned authorities; or procures petroleum products from a person who is not licensed to trade, although being aware thereof”. In addition, Article 16 stipulates that “No criminal action shall be filed for any of the offenses provided for in Article (15) of this Law, unless at the written request of the Competent Authority. Reconciliation may be reached for any of the offenses provided for in Article (15) of this Law before the case is referred to the Competent Court in return for an amount not exceeding the fine prescribed for the offense, in accordance with the controls determined by the Cabinet. The criminal proceedings shall lapse upon the payment of the reconciliation amount. Should the offender reject reconciliation, the matter shall be referred to the Public Prosecution.”

Whereas it is proven from the facts of the case and the referral order that the Public Prosecution has referred the respondents to trial for the crime of trading in petroleum products without a licence, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1, 4, 12/1-4, 1/14 A-3 of Law No. 14 of 2017 on Trading in Petroleum Products, and they were not charged with any of the crimes mentioned in Article 15 of that Law.

Whereas, the contested judgment declared the innocence of the respondents on the grounds that the Public Prosecution initiated the criminal case against them and referred them for trial without a written request from the competent authority and without investigating whether or not the text of Article 15 of the aforementioned Law applies to the incident, subject matter of the cassation, and therefore, its ruling shall be deemed as having violated the law and contained flaws in inference, and consequently, it shall be reversed.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and all documents - the Public Prosecution accused the respondents of having on 6/9/2019 in the Sharjah Department:

Illegally traded in petroleum products (diesel) in the territory of the state without a permit, contrary to Federal Law No. 14 of 2017 on Trading in Petroleum Products as indicated in the documents.

And requested their punishment according to Article 1, 4, 12/1-4, 14/1 A-3 of Law No. 14 of 2017 on Trading in Petroleum Products.

In the session dated 31/1/2019, the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance ruled in presence the acquittal of the defendants of the charges against them.

The Public Prosecution did not accept this ruling and filed an appeal against it.

In the session dated 20/10/2019, the Sharjah Appeal Court ruled in Appeal No. 2464 of 2019 to accept it in form, and in the merits, to reject it and to confirm the appealed judgment.

The Public Prosecution did not accept this ruling and therefore, it filed against it the present appeal in cassation.

Whereas, the Public Prosecution objects to the contested ruling stating that it erred in the application of the law, contained deficiencies in causation and contravened the documented facts, since the judgment acquitted the respondents on the basis of the text of Article 16/1 of Federal Law No. 14 of 2017 on Trading in Petroleum Products, which stipulates that the crimes mentioned in Article 15 of the same Law may not be subject to criminal proceedings except upon a written request from the competent authority, and since it is proven from the referral order that the Public Prosecution did not refer the respondent to trial according to Article 15 of the law, but according to other articles, and since Article 16/1 listed the aforementioned crimes exclusively, and none of them is provided for in Article 14 / 1-2, the contested ruling shall be reversed.

Whereas this objection is valid, since it is prescribed - as per the ruling of this court - that the trial court has the authority to issue a judgment of acquittal whenever it doubts the validity of the charge against the accused or the insufficiency of evidence, provided that its ruling includes an indication to the effect that it has examined the case, thoroughly and carefully, and gained an understanding of its circumstances and the evidence of proof and weighed between the said evidence and that of the prosecution, and subsequently gave preponderance to the accused's defence or doubted the validity of the elements of the case.

Whereas it is prescribed as per the provisions of Article 15 of Law No. 14 of 2017 on Trading in Petroleum Products, that “A fine of no more than AED (500,000) shall be imposed on any licensee who breaches any of the obligations prescribed in Article (13) of the present Law. The same penalty shall be imposed on whoever transports petroleum products in any means of transport that are unlicensed to transport petroleum products or that do not meet any of the licensing conditions approved by the concerned authorities; or procures petroleum products from a person who is not licensed to trade, although being aware thereof”. In addition, Article 16 stipulates that “No criminal action shall be filed for any of the offenses provided for in Article (15) of this Law, unless at the written request of the Competent Authority. Reconciliation may be reached for any of the offenses provided for in Article (15) of this Law before the case is referred to the Competent Court in return for an amount not exceeding the fine prescribed for the offense, in accordance with the controls determined by the Cabinet. The criminal proceedings shall lapse upon the payment of the reconciliation amount. Should the offender reject reconciliation, the matter shall be referred to the Public Prosecution.”