Cassation No

(1) The ruling issued in the case may be contested through opposition by the accused. Effects thereof. However, the Public Prosecution is barred from seeking cassation against it. This limitation stems from the principle that only final rulings issued by the Court of Appeal are subject to cassation, as outlined in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

(2) It is established that the contested judgment was rendered in absentia on the lapse of the appeal and the appellate opposition was filed by the convict. The ruling of lapse of the appeal may not be appealed through cassation. The Public Prosecution's contravention of this principle renders the appeal in cassation impermissible.

1- It is legally established - as per the ruling of this court - that if a ruling in a case is subject to appeal through opposition by the accused, the Public Prosecution is prohibited from filing an appeal in cassation until the opposition has been decided or the deadline for opposition has expired, in accordance with the provisions of Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Law. This limitation applies specifically to appeals in cassation against final rulings issued by the Court of Appeal in a felony or misdemeanour.

2- In the present case, and whereas it is proven pursuant to the perusal of the documents, that the contested ruling was rendered in absentia, on the lapse of the appeal on 17/3/2022. On the same date, the convict submitted Appellate Opposition No. 16 of 2022, and the Court of Appeal issued its ruling on 19/5/2022. The Court of Appeal accepted the appellate opposition in form but rejected it on the merits, thereby confirming the ruling subject to the opposition. Based on the foregoing, and whereas the Public Prosecution's appeal in cassation was directed against the appeal ruling issued in absentia on 17/3/2022, it becomes evident that the appeal was filed against a ruling that, at the time of filing, was not appealable through cassation. This is because the opposition had not been decided until 19/5/2022, and the deadline for opposition was still valid when the Public Prosecution lodged the appeal in cassation against a ruling issued in absentia. Consequently, the cassation appeal is deemed impermissible under these circumstances.

Whereas in the facts - as apparent in the contested ruling and the remaining documents - the Public Prosecution levelled accusations against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the accused"). It alleged that, prior to 7/1/2019, within the confines of the department of...:

The accused illicitly appropriated the sum of 2,150 dirhams through the use of a document (Check No. 5 issued by [Bank Name]), employing fraudulent methods and assuming an inaccurate capacity. This conduct was likely to deceive the victim [Name] and coerce him into relinquishing the specified sum, as delineated in the investigative proceedings.

The Public Prosecution sought his punishment in accordance with the provisions of Article 399/1 of the Penal Code.

In the session dated 19/1/2022, the court of first instance, in absentia, ruled to impose a one-month imprisonment sentence upon the respondent for the aforementioned charge.

Subsequently, the convict lodged Opposition No. 20/2022 against this judgment. In a session held on 14/2/2022, the court of first instance ruled to accept the opposition in form, and on the merits, to cancel the contested judgment subject to the opposition. In its place, the court decreed a new judgment, mandating the respondent (the accused) to remit a financial penalty amounting to ten thousand dirhams for the charge brought against him.

Unsatisfied with this outcome, the convict initiated an appeal under No. 169 of 2022. On 17/3/2022, the Ajman Federal Court of Appeal, in absentia, pronounced the lapse of the appeal submitted by the respondent due to his failure to file it within the stipulated timeframe for hearing the appeal.

In the session dated 17/3/2022, the convict submitted Appellate Opposition No. 16 of 2022. Subsequently, on 19/5/2022, the Ajman Court of Appeal rendered a decision to accept the appellate opposition in form, and on the merits, to reject it and confirm the ruling subject to the opposition.

On 23/3/2022, the Public Prosecution contested the ruling issued on 17/3/2022, on the lapse of the appeal on the grounds that the accused failed to personally submit it for execution.

Whereas the prosecution posits an objection to the contested judgment, contending that it violated the law. Specifically, it asserts that the judgment erred in adjudicating on the appeal while treating it as an in absentia ruling, despite the fact that the court of first instance had annulled the judgment rendered in absentia and subsequently issued a new judgment in the accused's presence, imposing a fine. This perceived inconsistency renders the contested judgment defective and necessitates its reversal.

It is legally established - as per the ruling of this court - that if a ruling in a case is subject to appeal through opposition by the accused, the Public Prosecution is prohibited from filing an appeal in cassation until the opposition has been decided or the deadline for opposition has expired, in accordance with the provisions of Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Law. This limitation applies specifically to appeals in cassation against final rulings issued by the Court of Appeal in a felony or misdemeanour.

In the present case, and whereas it is proven pursuant to the perusal of the documents, that the contested ruling was rendered in absentia, on the lapse of the appeal on 17/3/2022. On the same date, the convict submitted Appellate Opposition No. 16 of 2022, and the Court of Appeal issued its ruling on 19/5/2022. The Court of Appeal accepted the appellate opposition in form but rejected it on the merits, thereby confirming the ruling subject to the opposition. Based on the foregoing, and whereas the Public Prosecution's appeal in cassation was directed against the appeal ruling issued in absentia on 17/3/2022, it becomes evident that the appeal was filed against a ruling that, at the time of filing, was not appealable through cassation. This is because the opposition had not been decided until 19/5/2022, and the deadline for opposition was still valid when the Public Prosecution lodged the appeal in cassation against a ruling issued in absentia. Consequently, the cassation appeal is deemed impermissible under these circumstances.