Page 102 - مجلة المحكمة العليا السنة الأولى العدد الأول

No. l
PENAL OBJECTION FOR CASSATION
No. 8 - XI
Decided on 10 April. 1964
Subject matter:
l. Inspection - Exception to vali-
dity of inspection cannot be in-
itiated before the Supreme Court.
2. Concealment of stolen chattels
- The necessity of existence of
the element of knowledge on the
part of the concealing party.
Principles of Law
1. It is juridically agreed that an exception to
validity of an inspection or of investigation proceed-
ings is an exception of merits which requires the
examination of the trial court so that unless such
exception is raised before the challenged court, it
cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme
Court. Since determination of this exception requires
the examination of facts which lies without the pro-
vince of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
2. Article 465 (1) bis requires the existence of
the element of knowledge on the part of the person
who conceals the stolen chattels. Thus, where the
challenged judgment fails to show that the stolen
chattels were known to have been acquired by theft,
this judgment should be considered vitiated by de
SUPREME COURT JOURNAL
A quarterly published once every three months under the supervision
of Chief Justice, MUHAMMAD KHALIL AL-QIMATI
Publication office: Supreme Court Secretariat - Tel. 30255
Tripoli Libya
Annual subscription: in Libya 50 piastres,
outside Libya post charges are added.
Price of one copy: 15 piastres.
7 Vol. 1
ficiency and worthy of reversal insofar as this defi-
ciency is concerned.
PENAL OBJECTION FOR CASSATION
No. 49 IX
Decided on 18 April 1964.
Subject matter:
Instances in which a judge is barred
from hearing an action (Art. 220
Penal Procedure Code).
Principle of Law
The view that any judge who hears an opposition
order committing an indicted person to custody or
releasing him therefrom is estopped from hearing the
subject matter of the indictment is inconsistent with
the Law, since the hearing of an opposition to an or-
der of custody is merely a precautionary proceding oc-
oasioned by incompletion of the prosecution investi-
gation. It is juridically and legally established that
hearing and denial of a defendant's motion against
an order of custody does not preclude the judge con-
cerned from passing judgement against the said de-
fendant in the same penal action. Decision of the
opposition mentioned, while the action is in the
course of investigation, does not bar the judge during
the trial from changing his opinion if he so finds
appropriate after the case for the prosecution and the
defence had been fully laid before the court.