Page 104 - مجلة المحكمة العليا السنة الأولى العدد الأول
P. 104
\
No. 1 5 Vol. I
PENAL OBJECTION FOR CASSATION
the conditions hereinbefore referred to by showing
the form as well as period and commencement of No. 71 - X
possession so that the Court of Cassation can review Decided on 22 February 1964
the extent to which the Law has been applied.
CIVIL OBJECTION FOR CASSATION Subject matter:
No. 31 - VIII 1. A court. of assize is entitled to
Decided on 18 April 1964 correct any material error made
by the prosecution in a descrip-
Subject matter:
tion of fact.
I. Prescription. Waqf action un- Grave injury - Permanent dis-
der the Islamic Doctrine. ability.
2. Evidence. The Court's right to
2. Succession and acquirement of assess the statements of wit-
ownership by possession. nesses and sustain only certain
parts thereof.
Principles of Law
Principles of Law
I. The consensus of jurisconsults of the Islamic
Doctrine has been that no waqf suit may be heard 1. Article 381 of the Penal Code provides un-
after the lapse of 30 years from the date of creation der its five sections for the various forms of grave
of the waqf. This has been agreed for the pur- bodily injury. Section 2, apart from section 3,
pose of reconciliation between the rules of justice and provides for the loss totally or in part, of .
an original rule in the Doctrine which forbids the one of the senses. In their description of the
acquirement of ownership by force. incident imputed to the Objector, the Prosecu-
tion and the Chamber of Indictment refer to the
2. It is established that succession is not con- act cited under Article 381 Section 3. Thus the
sidered to be a sufficient reason for acquiring owner- Court would be quite justified in applying this sec-
ship by possession since any heir is deemed to be the tion to the case fact. Since_by so doing, it would
successor of his testator and cannot, therefore, com- be correcting a material error in the prosecution
mence a possession whicr is independent of his an- record considering that the act imputed to the Ob-
cestor. jector did not involve the injury of any of his senses.
PENAL OBJECTION FOR CASSATION 2. There is no wrong in the trial court's sus-
tainment of the victim's statements against the Ob-
No. ll6 - IX jector rather than against the last defendant who was
acquitted by the court. Since the trial court is en-
Decided on 22 February 1964 titled to assess the entire evidence and sustain or
reject, at her discretion, any part of the statements
of witnesses without being subject, in this respect,
to Supreme Court supervision.
Subject matter: PENAL OBJECTION FOR CASSATION
No. 1 - XI
Theft - Intent to Steal-
Inference thereof from established Decided on 22 February 1964
facts.
Subject matter:
Principle of Law
Evidence. Of the statements of
The Court of Misdemeanours (as in this action) witnesses laid before it, the trial
is at liberty to remain silent about the intent to steal court may sustain only what is to
so long as the relative fact recorded in the judgment her satisfaction.
implies the intent to commit the punishable offence.
