KUWAIT CITY, March 1: The Criminal Court acquitted a Kuwaiti woman who was accused of possessing a firearm and ammunition, and ordered a Kuwaiti man, with whom the woman had a quarrel, to pay a fine of KD 1,000. According to the report of the arresting officer, a fight broke out between a Kuwaiti woman and a Kuwaiti man. She revealed to the officer that the man had threatened to harm her with a firearm. When the officer asked the man, he denied possessing the firearm and said she was the one who produced the firearm during their fight. Based on this report, the Public Prosecution had charged both suspects with possession of an automatic gun and 34 bullets without permit. Representing the woman was Lawyer Ahmad Al-Failakawi who affirmed that his client had denied the charges from the start of the investigations. He stressed that his client has no connection whatsoever with the weapon, highlighting that she was the one who reported the incident to the police. Lawyer Al-Failakawi said he wondered why his client would report about the gun if she was the one who possessed it illegally. He requested the court for the acquittal of his client based on the evidence that the weapon belonged to the man. The court ruled in favor of Lawyer Al-Failakawi and decided to impose a fine of KD 1,000 on the first defendant, the Kuwaiti man.
Youth in drug case: The Criminal Court acquitted a 20-year old Kuwaiti citizen who was accused of consuming drugs and causing a traffic accident on Arabian Gulf Road late night. The Public Prosecution had charged the young man of possessing brain intoxicants without a license. The charges were based on the investigation report of the arresting officer. According to this report, the officer, after receiving information about a traffic accident, went to the site and discovered that the suspect’s vehicle had collided with another. Upon searching the suspect’s vehicle prior to removing it from the road, he discovered a suspicious cigarette that was thrown on the fl oor of the car. When he confronted the suspect about it, the latter said he was smoking it. Upon further search, the officer found a black packet that contained hashish, which the suspect, when asked about it, said it was intended for his consumption. However, the defense counsel Lawyer Enam Haidar stressed the invalidation of the arrest and search procedures, as they were not sanctioned by the Public Prosecution. She affirmed that these procedures contravened article No. 80 of the Penal Code, highlighting the lack of incriminating evidences against her client.
Verdict overturned: The Civil Circuit of the Court of Appeals overturned the verdict issued by the Court of First Instance which ordered a Kuwaiti woman to pay KD 53,000 based on a promissory note she signed. According to the plaintiff’s statement, the woman owes him KD 53,000 based on the promissory note she signed, and she refused to repay the money despite his friendly attempts to convince her to do so. He obtained a payment order but the payment order was dismissed. He then decided to resort to the court to get back his money. During the court session, the defense counsel Lawyer Hassan Al-Ajmi urged the court to revoke the verdict of the Court of First Instance, insisting that the verdict was based on wrong interpretation of the relevant law. Lawyer Al-Ajmi said the note acquires its power from confirming the signature is correct and the reason it was signed for is legal, but if the debtor claims the reason behind the signed document is fake, he must present evidence to prove the reason is fake.
Decision nullified: The Misdemeanor Court of Cassation chaired by Consultant Najeeb Al-Mulla ruled that cyber crime cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Misdemeanor Circuit, and thereby nullified the decision issued by Appeals Court’s some months ago referring cyber crime cases to the Criminal Court. The court reasoned that judgment was premised on the stipulation of Article 6 of cyber crime law that specifies penalties and prohibitions for print and publication law but the same article does not stipulate Criminal Court as its jurisdiction. This means the general rule can be used to specify the jurisdiction of penal cases.
By Jaber Al-Hamoud Al-Seyassah Staff