وبعد انتهاء التحقيقات طلب محام المت

وبعد انتهاء التحقيقات طلب محام المتهمين الاطلاع على ملف الدعوى واجلا لايداع مذكرة بدفاعهم ، فقررت المحكمة تأجيل نظر الدعوى لجلسة 27/6/2016 للاطلاع وتقديم المذكرات والمرافعة الختامية الخاصة بالدفاع ، وفي جلسة 27/6/2016 حضر جميع المتهمين من الاول الى السابع مع المحامى ، حيث قدم محامي المتهمين المحامي سرحان الريسي من الاول الى السادس مرافعته امام المحكمة مؤكدا على ما جاء في مذكرة الدفاع المقدمة في جلسة 30/5/2016 ومتمسكا بكافة الدفوع الشكلية والموضوعية الواردة في المذكرة ، كما انضم المحامي سعيد الريسي - محامى المتهمين من الاول الى السادس - الى ذات الدفاع المقدم سابقا مؤكدا عليه ومضيفا بعض الدفوع الشكلية والموضوعية متعلقة بالتهمة الثالثة المنسوبة للمتهمين وهي تهمة مخالفة قانون سلامة الغذاء ، حيث ذكر المحامي ان هيئة حماية المستهلك غير مختصه بالاجراءات المتعلقة في حالة مخالفة القانون المذكور ، حيث ان هناك جهة اخرى مسؤولة عن متابعة مخالفة قانون سلامة الغذاء ، وكذلك تناول دفاعه فيما يتعلق بتقرير المختبر من انه جاء عائما لم يحدد تفاصيل ومقايس وبيان كل نسبة مما تم فحصه حتى يثبت ان العينة المفحوصة قد جاوزت المواصفات والمقاييس المقررة من عدمه ، فضلا على ان مختبر البلدية غير مختص ببيان النتيجة النهائية لفحص العينة وانما يعود ذلك للمختبر المركزي الاكثر تخصصا وهو تابع لوزارة البلديات ، واختتم دفاعه فيما يتعلق بتهمة مخالفة قانون العمل المنسوبة للمتهم الاول ، حيث افاد ان المادة 114/3 من قانون العمل لا تنطبق على المتهم حيث انها تجرم مسألة التعمين ، وقدم مذكرة شارحة لما افاد به مع مستنداتها ، وسلم صورة منها للادعاء العام .

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 1:

After the conclusion of the investigation the accused lawyer requested access to the case file and the filing of the Memorial of their defense, the Court decided to postpone the hearing for 27/6/2016 for memos and closing arguments for the defense, at 27/6/2016 attended all the defendants from first to seventh with the lawyer, the lawyer's lawyer accused Sarhan RISI I to vi of its case before the Court, saying the Defense memo submitted at the hearing on 30/5/2016 and all formal and substantive arguments contained In the note, counsel also joined happy RISI-defendants from first to sixth-former defence-saying it and adding some formal and substantive arguments concerning the guilt of the accused and the alleged third is accused of violating the food safety law, as counsel to the consumer protection authority not competent in the case of action against the law, so that there is another party responsible for pursuing infringement indeed!The safety of food, as well as addressing his defense concerning the lab report that came floating didn't specify details of standards and by the proportion which checked even proves that the sample checked exceeded prescribed standards and specifications, as well as on the municipal laboratory incompetent end result statement to examine the specimen, but due to more specialized central laboratory and is the Ministry of municipalities, and concluded his defense regarding charges of violating labor law imputed to the accused, stating that article 114/3 The labour code does not apply to the accused in that they criminalise question omanisation, and presented a note explaining to him with documents, and handed a copy to the prosecution.

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 2:

After the conclusion of the investigation request a lawyer of the accused access to the case file and for the filing of a memorandum of their defense, the court decided to postpone consideration of the case for hearing for 06.27.2016 and make notes and closing arguments for the defense, and in the 27.06.2016 meeting of all the defendants attended the first to seventh with lawyer , where he presented the accused's lawyer lawyer Sarhan Risi from first to sixth arguments before the court, stressing on what is stated in the defense submitted a memorandum at the meeting of 30.05.2016 and adheres to all defenses formal and objective contained in the note, as the lawyer Saeed Al Raisi - joined the lawyer of the accused from the first to the the sixth with the defense submitted - to the former stressing it and adding some defenses formal and objective related to the third attributed to the defendants guilty and is in violation of food safety law charge, where Stormer said body of consumer protection was not competent to proceedings relating to the case of violation of the Act, where there are other hand, is responsible for follow-up offense food safety Law, as well as taking his defense with regard to the report of the laboratory he came afloat did not specify the details and Mqais and the statement of all proportion than Checked even prove that the examined sample has exceeded specifications and standards prescribed or not, as well as on the municipal laboratory is not specialized in a statement on the final result to examine the sample, but this is due to the Central Laboratory of the more specialized, part of the Ministry of municipalities, concluded his defense with regard to charges of violation of labor law against the first defendant, where, according to Article 114/3 of the Labour Act does not apply to the accused as it criminalizes the issue of Omanis, and presented explanatory memorandum to reported by the documents, he handed a copy of it to the prosecution.

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 3:

After the conclusion of the investigation request the accused counsel access to the case file Wajla to file a defence, the court decided to postpone the consideration of the case for the 27 / 6 / 2016, for submission the notes and the defence closing, and a 27 / 6 / 2016, all of the accused came from the first to the seventh lawyer, as counsel for the accused lawyer "from the first to the sixth risi"s case before the court, emphasizing the memorandum of the defense presented in session 30 / 5 / 2016, consistent with B All the formal and substantive arguments contained in the note, he also joined the SA risi. The lawyer accused of from one to sixth. The defence before adding it to the the host of the formal and substantive objections concerning the third charge against the accused and charged with breaching the food safety, counsel states that the consumer protection authority is competent with process in case of violating the law, where there is, on the other hand, responsible for meta Follow food safety law violation, as well as his defence relating to the report of the laboratory he came floating Wmqays did not specify the details and by the proportion of which has been examined. Prove that the sample surveyed had exceeded the established specifications and standards, or not, as well as on Municipal Laboratory of non expert made a final score for the sample but it back to the lab. the most specialized and affiliated with the Ministry of municipalities, and concluded his defence on charges of violation of labour law. Swbt first accused, said the Article 114 / 3 of the Labour Act do not apply to the accused makes omanization, where she presented a note explaining why according to him, with their materials, handed a prosecution.