Cassation No

(3) The contested ruling examined the case's reality, delineated the factual and legal aspects concerning psychotropic substance abuse, based on the case documents, and concluded the appellant's conviction based on well-founded reasons substantiated in the documents. Contesting the ruling on grounds that the accusation was unproven is an invalid substantive disagreement.

(4 - 6) Appeal in cassation: “The deadline for appeal in cassation: The deadline for presenting the grounds for the appeal: “Exception: Issuance of New Law More Favourable for the Accused”. Law “Law More Favourable for the Accused”. Drugs and Psychotropic Substances: “Applying the New Law that is More Favourable for the Accused”.

(4) Presenting reasons outside the specified time for the appeal before the Court of Cassation is inadmissible. Exception: The court may, of its own accord, reverse a ruling in favour of the accused if a law is enacted that is more favourable and applicable to the case facts. Article 246/2 of Criminal Procedure Law.

(5) The issuance of a new law solely mitigating the penalty. The court that issued the final ruling may review the sentence under the new law upon a request from the Public Prosecution or the convict. Article 14/3, Law No. 31 of 2021.

(6) Issuance of a law more favourable for the appellant - Law No. 30 of 2021 - which reduced the sentence imposed on him. Result thereof. It shall be applied. The appellant submitted to the Criminal Court a request to reduce the penalty pursuant to Article 14/3 of Article 31 of 2021. Its effect. Reversal of the ruling as to that part.

1- It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that the trial court holds complete authority to comprehend the case's reality and assess evidence, establishing conviction that the crime has been proven and committed by the accused based on compelling evidence it finds convincing, with no further review, provided it thoroughly examines and comprehends the case's circumstances. The court shall refrain from relying on unfounded facts and, instead, base its judgment on substantiated, valid reasons.

2- It is also prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that the assessment of investigation seriousness and sufficiency to issue a search and arrest warrant is a substantive matter entrusted to the investigating authority's purview under the oversight of the trial court if it is convinced of the credibility of the inferences forming the basis of the ruling. Hence, disputing this before the Federal Supreme Court is inadmissible.

3- Such being the case, and whereas the contested ruling meticulously addressed the case's factual and legal elements of the crime against the appellant, deducing them from the chemical laboratory report submitted by the General Department of Criminal Evidence and Criminology, examining the accused's urine sample and confirming the presence of a psychotropic substance. The appellant confessed during trial but failed to submit a medical prescription. The ruling found the appellant guilty based on ample supporting evidence. Its conclusion is valid and supported in the document. The appellant's contention that the accusation was not substantiated amounts to a disagreement concerning the trial court's authority to assess evidence and investigation seriousness, which may not be upheld before this court. Consequently, the appeal in cassation on this matter is to be dismissed.

4- Further, it is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, pursuant to the text of Article 246/2 that “no additional grounds beyond those previously presented within the stipulated deadline for an appeal in cassation may be brought before the Court of Cassation. However, the court reserves the authority to reverse a ruling in favour of the accused sua sponte, if the court determines from the confirmed evidence that the contested ruling is marred by a defect related to public order, a violation of the law, an error in its application or interpretation, or if the court that issued the ruling was not constituted in accordance with the law, lacked jurisdiction, or if a new law that is more favourable to the accused was issued and applies to the case in question”. The law that exhibits greater favourability to the accused in this context is Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, which stipulates in Article 41 thereof that “the penalty of imprisonment for a term not less than three months or a fine not less than twenty thousand dirhams and not exceeding one hundred thousand dirhams shall be imposed on anyone who 1- abuses in any way or personally uses in circumstances other than those authorised, any of the narcotics and psychotropic substances stipulated in Tables 1, 2 and 5..).

5- Additionally, it is prescribed, in accordance with Article 14/3 of Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 on Crimes and Penalties, that (if the new law solely mitigates the penalty, the court which delivered the final ruling may review the imposed penalty upon a request from either the Public Prosecution or the convict, in alignment with the new law’s provisions.)

6- Such being the case, and whereas it is evident from the documentation that the appellant was tried under the law on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, which was repealed by Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021. This new Decree-Law includes a mitigation of penalties for offences involving possession and abuse of narcotics and psychotropic substances. As the contested ruling was issued in this case and the latest law is more advantageous to the accused, as mandated by Article 14/3 of the Crimes and Penalties Law, the contested ruling shall be reversed as to this part with remand.

Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and all other documents, the Public Prosecution accused the defendant / ....... of having on 7/23/2021 in the Department of ........:

- Possessed with the intention of abusing a psychotropic substance (amphetamine - methamphetamine) in circumstances other than those permitted by law.

The prosecution sought his punishment under Articles 1/1, 6, 34, 39, and 65 of Federal Law No. 14 of 1995, as amended, and Items 1 and 9 of Table 5 appended to the law.

In the session held on 26/9/2021, the court of first instance found the accused guilty and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment for the alleged offence.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the accused filed against it Appeal No. 869/2021. During the session held on 14/11/2021, the Court of Appeal accepted the appeal in form and, and in the merits, modified the imposed sentence into a two-year prison term while revoking the fine.

The appellant contested this decision through the current cassation, while the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum advocating the rejection of the cassation.

The appellant argues against the contested ruling, contending that it erred in the application of the law, displayed deficiencies in reasoning, and breached the defence's rights, when it confirmed the appealed ruling of the accused's conviction and punishment for the alleged offence, despite the accused's denial and assertion that the psychotropic substance was used under a legitimate medical prescription. Furthermore, the appellant claims that the arrest and search warrant was based on insubstantial investigations, a point overlooked by the contested ruling, rendering it defective and necessitating its reversal.

Whereas the part of the objection related to the establishment of the accusation is misplaced; since It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that the trial court holds complete authority to comprehend the case's reality and assess evidence, establishing conviction that the crime has been proven and committed by the accused based on compelling evidence it finds convincing, with no further review, provided it thoroughly examines and comprehends the case's circumstances. The court shall refrain from relying on unfounded facts and, instead, base its judgment on substantiated, valid reasons.

It is also prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that the assessment of investigation seriousness and sufficiency to issue a search and arrest warrant is a substantive matter entrusted to the investigating authority's purview under the oversight of the trial court if it is convinced of the credibility of the inferences forming the basis of the ruling. Hence, disputing this before the Federal Supreme Court is inadmissible.

Such being the case, and whereas the contested ruling meticulously addressed the case's factual and legal elements of the crime against the appellant, deducing them from the chemical laboratory report submitted by the General Department of Criminal Evidence and Criminology, examining the accused's urine sample and confirming the presence of a psychotropic substance. The appellant confessed during trial but failed to submit a medical prescription. The ruling found the appellant guilty based on ample supporting evidence. Its conclusion is valid and supported in the document. The appellant's contention that the accusation was not substantiated amounts to a disagreement concerning the trial court's authority to assess evidence and investigation seriousness, which may not be upheld before this court. Consequently, the appeal in cassation on this matter is to be dismissed.

Further, it is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, pursuant to the text of Article 246/2 that “no additional grounds beyond those previously presented within the stipulated deadline for an appeal in cassation may be brought before the Court of Cassation. However, the court reserves the authority to reverse a ruling in favour of the accused sua sponte, if the court determines from the confirmed evidence that the contested ruling is marred by a defect related to public order, a violation of the law, an error in its application or interpretation, or if the court that issued the ruling was not constituted in accordance with the law, lacked jurisdiction, or if a new law that is more favourable to the accused was issued and applies to the case in question”. The law that exhibits greater favourability to the accused in this context is Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, which stipulates in Article 41 thereof that “the penalty of imprisonment for a term not less than three months or a fine not less than twenty thousand dirhams and not exceeding one hundred thousand dirhams shall be imposed on anyone who 1- abuses in any way or personally uses in circumstances other than those authorised, any of the narcotics and psychotropic substances stipulated in Tables 1, 2 and 5..).

Additionally, it is prescribed, in accordance with Article 14/3 of Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 on Crimes and Penalties, that (if the new law solely mitigates the penalty, the court which delivered the final ruling may review the imposed penalty upon a request from either the Public Prosecution or the convict, in alignment with the new law’s provisions.)

Such being the case, and whereas it is evident from the documentation that the appellant was tried under the law on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, which was repealed by Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021. This new Decree-Law includes a mitigation of penalties for offences involving possession and abuse of narcotics and psychotropic substances. As the contested ruling was issued in this case and the latest law is more advantageous to the accused, as mandated by Article 14/3 of the Crimes and Penalties Law, the contested ruling shall be reversed as to this part with remand.