- Refraining without justification from giving the sample necessary to prove whether or not it contains narcotics or psychotropic substances, based on permission from the Public Prosecution. The basis therefor? Article 59 bis of the Narcotics Law.

- Gaining understanding of the facts of the lawsuit, assessing and weighing evidence therein, and adopting whatever it deems more reliable and of probative value. Within the trial court's authority. As long as it is satisfied therewith. It may also adopt the accused's confession, even if it is contained in the report on the collection of evidence or the Public Prosecution’s investigation. Whenever it is satisfied that it was issued by a free will and conscious choice, even if he withdraws it later on, with respect to crimes punishable by Ta’zir.

- An example of valid causation by convicting the accused for the crime of refraining from giving a sample for examination on the grounds that the appellant admitted in the Public Prosecution’s investigations that he abstained therefrom.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and all documents - the Public Prosecution accused the appellant of having on 07/08/2019 in the Al Dhaid Department:

Refused without justification to give the necessary examination sample to prove whether or not it contains narcotics or psychotropic substances after the Public Prosecution obtained a permission to this effect, as indicated in the investigations.

And requested his punishment pursuant to the provisions of the Islamic Sharia and Article 59 bis of Federal Law No. 14 of 1995 on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances and its amendments.

In the session dated 12/09/2019, the Court of First Instance ruled to sentence the appellant to two years imprisonment and a fine of twenty thousand dirhams for the charge against him and imposed on him to pay the fees due.

The convicted person filed an appeal against this ruling under No. 2809 of 2019.

In the session dated 06/11/2019, the Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in the merits, to impose on the appellant a fine equal to 11,000 dirhams and to confirm the appealed judgment as to the remaining parts and imposed on him to pay the fees due. This ruling was not accepted by the appellant, and therefore, he filed against it the present appeal in cassation. The Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of its opinion wherein it requested the dismissal of the cassation.

Whereas the appellant objects to the contested ruling stating that it violated the law and erred in its application on the grounds that the elements of the crime stipulated in Article 59 bis of the Narcotics Law are not available, since the Public Prosecution permission was issued to take the sample from him as a suspect in a burning accident of his vehicle and not because he was previously convicted of narcotics abuse. Also, the appellant denied the charge against him and did not refuse to give the sample; moreover, he was under a difficult psychological state and that his arrest occurred prior to the issuance of the Public Prosecution's permission, and therefore, the judgment shall be deemed defective, and consequently, it shall be reversed.

Whereas the entire objection is inadmissible, since it is prescribed pursuant to the provisions of Article 59 bis of Federal Law No. 14 of 1995 on Combatting Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances that “Whoever against whom a permission was issued by the Public Prosecution to take the necessary examination sample so as to prove whether or not it contains narcotics and psychotropic substances and refrains without justification from giving it, shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of no less than two years and a fine of no less than ten thousand (10,000) dirhams”. Also, it is prescribed as per the ruling of this court - that the trial court has the full authority to assess and weigh evidence in the lawsuit and adopt whatever it deems more reliable and of probative value, since it bases its judgment only on evidence with which it is satisfied and convinced.

Whereas the contested judgment confirming the appealed judgment on the grounds of its reasons and complementary thereto examined the facts and circumstances of the case, based on all the available legal elements of the crime for which it convicted the appellant and stated valid evidence against him that would lead to the conclusion reached by judgment, and represented in his arrest while he was in an abnormal state and his confession in the Public Prosecution’s investigations that he refused to give a sample for examination despite the issuance of the Public Prosecution's permission to that effect, and inferred therefrom that the appellant has committed the crime he is charged with, and then notes of the contested judgment as well as the established accusation and the availability of the elements of the crime attributed to the appellant stated therein, contain the implicit reply invalidating the grounds raised in the objection, and therefore, it shall be deemed ungrounded, and consequently, it shall be rejected.