وحيث انه من المقرر ان الجريمة والعق

وحيث انه من المقرر ان الجريمة والعقوبة شخصية ، ولما كان ذلك وكان الثابت مما قرره الشاهدين والمتهم امام المحكمة وكذلك ما هو ثابت بتقرير المخالفة البيئية بان المشروع يتم تنفيذه من قبل شركة الحسن الهندسية وشركة النفط الهندية وان المخالفة المضبوطة ناتجة عن الاعمال التي تقوم بها الشركتين ، وقد اكد على ذلك الشاهد سعيد الفزاري في شهادته امام المحكمة بان الشركتين معا تعملان في المشروع ، كما واكد الشاهد خالد البلوشي في شهادته انه تم توجيه المخالفة لشركة اوربك كونها هي مالكة للمشروع ، والمستفاد منه , و ان الشركة الاخيرة لم تزاول تلك الاعمال ومخالفتها كونها مالكة المشروع يتنافى مع مبدأ شخصية الجريمة والعقوبة والذي يقضي بعدم مسائلة الشخص عن جريمة لم تكن نتيجة لنشاطه الاجرامي ، وان الثابت مما سلف بيانه بان شركة الحسن الهندسية والشركة الهندية للنفط هما من تمارسان اعمال الصنفرة والصبغ الامر الذي لا يمكن معه مسائلة المتهم جزائيا عن تلك الاعمال وان مسائلته لا تعدو ان تكون سوى مسائلة ادارية خارجة عن المسائلة الجزائية امام القاضي الجزائي ، الامر الذي تنتهي معه المحكمة بانتفاء صلة المتهم بالمخالفات المضبوطة محل الاتهام مما مؤداه انتفاء الجرم قبله مما يتعين معه واعمالا للمادة (217/1) من قانون الاجراءات الجزائية اعلان براءته مما هو منسوب اليه : دون الحاجة لبحث باقي الدفوع المثارة .

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 1:

And where it due to crime and punishment, since it was fixed was thus decided by the witnesses and the accused before the Court as well as the constant environmental infraction report that the project is implemented by a company heci and Indian oil company and seized violation resulting from actions by the companies and had stressed that witness Saeed Al fazari testified before the Court that the two companies together are working on the project, as Ciprian witness confirmed in his testimony that he was directing the offense for one company is the owner of the project, and learned from him, and that the latter company never engaged in such acts and violation being homeowner project is incompatible with the principle of crime and punishment and personality that no question the person about the crime were not the result of criminal activity, and that the foregoing hard statement that Al Hassan engineering company oil India are having the work itemAnd dye which the accused could not bear criminal responsibility for such acts of monetising and immunity is only an administrative accountability beyond criminal liability before the judge, Criminal Court ends preclusion link accused of irregularities was the absence of charge shop which seized offence Kiss to him pursuant to article (217/1) of the code of criminal procedure, declaring his innocence, which he attributed to him : No need to examine the other arguments raised.

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 2:

And where he is scheduled to crime and personal punishment, and what was it was hard making the decision of the witnesses and the accused before the court as well as what is a constant report of environmental violation that the project is being implemented by Hassan Engineering Company and Indian Oil and violating the exact result of actions by the two companies, He has stressed that witness said Fazari in his testimony before the court that the two companies together are working on the project, also said the witness Khalid Al Balushi in his testimony that he was directing the offense for the company Aorbak being is the owner of the project, and learned from him, and that the latter company did not engage in those acts and violation being the owner The project is incompatible with the character of crime and punishment principle, which requires not accountable person for the crime were not the result of criminal activity, and that the firm, which previously noted that Hassan Engineering Company and the Indian oil Company two are engaging in acts of sandpaper and dye, which can not be with him questioning the accused criminally for those acts, and tough questions are not merely be only accountable administrative beyond criminal accountability to the penal judge, which ends with the court preclusion link the accused breaches the exact place of the indictment which the effect of absence of the offense before more needs to be with him, and pursuant to Article (217/1) of the criminal procedure Code declaration of his innocence than It is attributed to him: no need to search the rest of the defenses raised.

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 3:

As to the crime and the sentence character, since it was established, which decided by the witnesses and the accused before the court, as well as the constant violation of environmental report that the project is being implemented by Al Hassan engineering company of Indian oil company Wan seized infringement arising from the business of the company, the person said. In his testimony before the court) that the two companies operating in the project, as a witness of Khalid al balushi In his testimony, he directed the offense to orpic being the owner of the project, Walmstfad thereof, and that the company"s recent illegal and did not engage in such business as the owner of the project crime and punishment is contrary to the principle of personal accountability, that person for the offence was not due to criminal activity, and consistent than previously stated that Al Hassan engineering company and India"s oil are perpetrating acts sandpaper pigment which does not question the accused, it may be Jzay What about that business and actually does not appear to be the only administrative accountability beyond the criminal liability before the criminal court judge, which ends with the absence of link the accused seized irregularities being charged, which meant no offence before him and had to be Wamala article (217 / 1) of the criminal procedure code which is a declaration of innocence level: no need to discuss the rest of the defences raised.