(1) The ruling shall provide assurance to the person perusing it that the court comprehended the case's elements and addressed the meritorious defence.

(2) In cases where the accused denies the incident, the court proceeds to hear prosecution witnesses followed by defence witnesses, in accordance with Article 165 and 166 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

(3) Penal rulings rely on pleading and oral investigation after hearing witnesses. The omission of this process is subject to explicit or implicit waiver by the parties involved.

(4) The contested ruling dismissed the appellant's plea to hear both the complainant and the defence witnesses cited in his memorandum. Consequently, it is considered to have contained deficiencies in reasoning and breached the right of defence.

Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and other documents, the Public Prosecution accused the appellant of stealing, on 9/9/2021, in collaboration with an unknown individual, a car described and valued in the report, which belonged to the victim, with the intention of taking ownership, as outlined in the documents.

The prosecution sought punishment under Articles 45/1 and 443 of the Federal Penal Code.

In a session held on 1/2/2022, the court of first instance, in the presence of the appellant, issued a verdict convicting him and imposing a one-month imprisonment sentence for the charge. Additionally, the court ordered his deportation from the country after serving the sentence.

Discontent with the ruling, the appellant appealed the decision in Appeal No. 174 of 2022.

In a session dated 15/3/2022, the Court of Appeal accepted the appeal in form but rejected it on the merits and confirmed the appealed ruling.

Unsatisfied with this outcome, the appellant filed the present appeal in cassation. The Public Prosecution, in response, submitted a memorandum requesting the rejection of the cassation.

The appellant contends that the contested ruling breached the right of defence, displayed deficiencies in reasoning and flaws in inference. The appellant consistently denied involvement in the incident throughout the investigation and before the court that issued the ruling. He maintained his plea for acquittal and requested the court to hear both the complainant and the defence witnesses, whose names were explicitly mentioned in his defence memorandum. The ruling, however, overlooked these crucial points, failed to address them, and proceeded to convict him, rendering it defective and necessitating its reversal.

Whereas the objection holds merits, since it is prescribed that the ruling shall inherently provide assurance to the reader regarding the court's thorough consideration of the case's elements and examination of the meritorious aspects of the defence, which may change the formation of opinion in the case.

It is also prescribed, as per the text of Articles 165 and 166 of the Criminal Procedure Law, that if the accused refutes the alleged incident, the court is obligated to hear the prosecution witnesses before proceeding to the defence witnesses. It is established that penal judgments are grounded in the pleadings before the same judge who issued the ruling and the oral investigations conducted during the session after witness testimonies, whenever possible. Ignoring this procedure is impermissible unless explicitly or implicitly waived by the opposing parties.

In light of the established facts, and whereas it is proven, pursuant to the perusal of the documents, that the appellant asserted his innocence in the memorandum before the Court of Appeal, and, on a provisional basis, requested the court to hear both the complainant and the defence witnesses mentioned in his memorandum. The contested ruling disregarded this pivotal request, which warrants a court response as long as it does not result in acquittal. Consequently, the contested ruling is deemed to have deficiencies in reasoning and breached of the right of defence, necessitating its reversal with remand, without the need for examining other grounds for cassation.