(1) The ruling shall encompass comprehensive details, providing satisfaction to the perusing individual regarding the court's meticulous examination of evidence, as well as the considerations, requests, and pleas presented before it.

(2) Meritorious defence, in its essence, necessitates explicit attention from the court, mandating a response; failure to do so renders the ruling susceptible to deficiencies in reasoning.

(3) The plea of inadmissibility of the case due to previous adjudication may be raised at any stage, contingent upon the presence of the same opponents, crime, and the issuance of a final ruling. The court, acting sua sponte, is empowered to adjudicate on this plea, given its intrinsic connection to public order.

(4) An example of the error of the contested ruling in the application of the law is its failure to address the plea of inadmissibility based on previous adjudication in a ruling of which he submitted a copy without establishing that the court thoroughly examined the finality of the prior ruling, the parties involved, the subject matter, and the rationale behind that lawsuit.

Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and other documents, the Public Prosecution levelled accusations against the appellant, contending that on a date prior to 11/1/2021 in the district of [City]:

- he illicitly appropriated movable property owned by ..... This act, executed through the deceptive means of transforming the issuance of an incongruent check into the semblance of a valid transaction, was aimed at duping the complainant and compelling the surrender of the property, as depicted in the documents.

The prosecution invoked Article 451/1 of the Federal Crimes and Penalties Law, seeking punitive measures.

During a session on 26/1/2022, the court of first instance, in the presence of the appellant, rendered a verdict to convict and penalise him with a fine of five thousand dirhams for the imputed charge.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the appellant pursued an appeal in Appeal No. 149/2022.

Subsequently, in a session held on 29/3/2022, the Court of Appeal accepted the appeal in form, dismissed it on the merits, thereby confirming the appealed ruling.

Displeased with this outcome, the appellant has lodged the present appeal in cassation, contesting the judgment.

The Public Prosecution, in response, has submitted a memorandum urging the dismissal of the cassation.

Whereas the appellant's objections to the contested ruling encompass claims of error in the application of the law, deficiencies in reasoning, violation of documented facts, and breach of the right of defence. He asserts that the judgment overlooked his meritorious defence seeking a stay in the criminal case until the ruling in Penal Case No. 26/2022 becomes final. Moreover, the contested ruling allegedly neglects the plea of inadmissibility of the case due to previous adjudication in the aforementioned case. These perceived lapses render the ruling flawed, necessitating its reversal.

Whereas the objection holds merits, since it is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that the ruling shall comprehensively incorporate particulars reassuring the perusing individual that the court diligently examined the presented evidence, as well as the petitions and defenses brought before it. The court, in pursuit of discerning the truth in the case, is obligated to employ all available means.