اما بالنسبة للمتهم الرابع (المتهم ب

اما بالنسبة للمتهم الرابع (المتهم بمخالفة قانون حماية المستهلك - تداول سلعة فاسدة وعدم الالتزام بالشفافية والمصداقية ومخالفة قانون سلامة الغذاء)) .
المتهم حضر جلسات المحاكمة وانكر التهم المنسوبة اليه ، وافاد بذات الاقوال التي ابداها امام جهات التحقيق حيث افاد بانه يعمل كمحاسب ومقر عمله في مطرح ، ولا يعلم عن موضوع تنظيف الارز وتصفيته واعادة تعبئته سوى ان المتهم الثاني اخبره بان المتهم الثالث قد طلب منه القيام بتنظيف الارز ولم يمانع كون اعتقاده اراد تنظيف الارز وليس لاعادة التعبئة في اكياس جديدة ، ولا يعلم عن الطريقة التي تمت , و لا اجراءات تنظيف وتعبئة الارز .
بعد مواجهة المتهم والتحقيق معه والمرافعة ، لم يتبين للمحكمة قيام المتهم بأي فعل من الافعال التي كونت الجريمة ، سواء بأمره لاشخاص اخرين او القيام مباشرة بأفعال مادية ادت الى ارتكاب الجريمة ، والدليل الوحيد الذي وجد انه اتصل به المتهم الثاني لاخباره عن طلب المتهم الثالث منه القيام بمهمة تنظيف الارز ، وقد اكد المتهم الثاني ذلك وافاد ان اتصاله بالمتهم الرابع كان من باب المشورة كونه مسؤولا عنه ، وحيث لا يوجد اي دليل اخر او قرينة تطمئن اليها المحكمة في صحة اثبات ما نسب للمتهم . وحيث انه من المقرر في قضاء المحكمة العليا المبدأ رقم (169) من مجموعة الاحكام الجزائية لعام 2003 (ان الادانة لا تبنى الا على اليقين والجزم اما البراءة فيجوز ان تبنى على الشك وفي موضع اخر فان المحكمة لا تتطلب للحكم بالبراءة دليلا قاطعا على ذلك ولكن لابد من دليل قطعي على الادانه وانه اذا ترددت المحكمة بين الادانة والبراءة وثار لديها الشك فيهما يتعين لديها ان ترجح جانب البراءة وتقضي بها فالشك يفسر لصالح المتهم وحيث ان المحكمة لا تقتنع بنسبة الواقعة للمتهم الامر الذي يتعين معه القضاء ببراءته من التهم المنسوبة اليهم اخذا بنص المادة (217/1) اجراءات جزائية ، حسب ما يرد في منطوق الحكم .

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 1:

As for the fourth suspect (accused of violating consumer protection law-rotten commodity trading and lack of transparency and credibility and violation of food safety law)). Defendant attended the trial and denied the charges, according to a statement made before the investigation where he works as an accountant, in muttrah, and did not know about the subject of clean rice, filtered and repackaging only accused told him that the third defendant had asked him to do clean rice and did not mind that his belief he wanted clean rice and not for recycling in new bags, and don't know which way was Cleaning procedures, and rice filling.بعد مواجهة المتهم والتحقيق معه والمرافعة ، لم يتبين للمحكمة قيام المتهم بأي فعل من الافعال التي كونت الجريمة ، سواء بأمره لاشخاص اخرين او القيام مباشرة بأفعال مادية ادت الى ارتكاب الجريمة ، والدليل الوحيد الذي وجد انه اتصل به المتهم الثاني لاخباره عن طلب المتهم الثالث منه القيام بمهمة تنظيف الارز ، وقد اكد المتهم الثاني ذلك وافاد ان اتصاله بالمتهم الرابع كان من باب المشورة كونه مسؤولا عنه ، وحيث لا يوجد اي دليل اخر او قرينة تطمئن اليها المحكمة في صحة اثبات ما نسب للمتهم . وحيث انه من المقرر في قضاء المحكمة العليا المبدأ رقم (169) من مجموعة الاحكام الجزائية لعام 2003 (ان الادانة لا تبنى الا على اليقين والجزم اما البراءة فيجوز ان تبنى على الشك وفي موضع اخر فان المحكمة لا تتطلب للحكم بالبراءة دليلا قاطعا على ذلك ولكن لابد من دليل قطعي على الادانه وانه اذا ترددت المحكمة بين الادانة والبراءة وثار لديها الشك فيهما يتعين لديها ان ترجح جانب البراءة وتقضي بها فالشك يفسر لصالح المتهم وحيث ان المحكمة لا تقتنع بنسبة الواقعة للمتهم الامر الذي يتعين معه القضاء ببراءته من التهم المنسوبة اليهم اخذا بنص المادة (217/1) اجراءات جزائية ، حسب ما يرد في منطوق الحكم .

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 2:

As for the fourth defendant (accused of violating consumer protection - trading corrupt commodity law and lack of commitment to transparency, credibility and violation of food safety law)).
Defendant attended the trial and denied the charges, and said the same words shown by before the investigating authorities where reported that he worked as an accountant and his workplace in excretory, and does not know the subject of rice cleaned and filtered and re - fill it only the second defendant told him that the third suspect had asked him to clean the rice did not mind the fact that he believed Arad , rice cleaning and not for re - packing in new bags, and does not know the way that has, and do not clean up measures and the mobilization of rice.
after the face of the accused and the investigation and hearing, it appears to the Court that the defendant in any of the acts that made up the crime, whether his order to other people or to do a direct physical acts that led to the commission of the crime, the only one who found that he was contacted by the second defendant for his news on the request of the accused and the evidence third him to do the task of cleaning rice, it was the second defendant and said it confirmed that it relates to the fourth defendant was a matter of advice being responsible for it, and where there is no other evidence or the presumption assured the Court the validity of the proof of what was attributed to the defendant. And where he planned to spend the Supreme Court principle No. (169) of the penal provisions of the 2003 group (that the conviction is not built only on the certainty and say for sure either of innocence may be built on suspicion and in another location, the court does not require the acquittal conclusive evidence of that, but to be of conclusive evidence on the conviction and that if I hesitated court between guilt or innocence, revolted to have doubt in them should have that outweigh side of innocence and required by Valchuk be interpreted in favor of the accused and that 's where the court is not convinced by the incident of the accused, which should be with him eliminate pleaded not guilty to the charges against them , taking the text of Article ( 217/1) punitive measures, as set out in the verdict.

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 3:

As for the defendant accused of violating Consumer Protection Act fourth. The circulation of commodity of corrupt and the commitment to transparency and credibility, and violation of the law of food safety.The suspect attended the trial denied the charges, and said the same words investigation points as shown by the Imam said that he worked as an accountant and his work in place, not learn about cleaning and rice and packaged, only that the defendant second told him that the third accused had asked him to do clean the rice and did not mind that he believed wanted to clean up rice is not, nor know how to packing in new bags were, and the procedures of cleaning, filling only Rose.After encountering the suspect, investigation and prosecution, the court has found that the accused in any of the acts of crime, whether directly. For other people or things material led to the Commission of the crime, the only evidence found that the call is charged second of the accused. Third to clean the rice and the the second, and said that his fourth co accused was in the advice being responsible, as there is no del Yale or another wife assures them the correctness proof is attributed to the accused. Since it"s decision in the Supreme Court justice principle No. (169) of a criminal sentences of 2003 conviction is built only on the certainty and assertion but the patent may be built upon that question, the court does not require for judgement of acquittal on another proof of that but we have conclusive evidence Aladanh and if the court were among the convictions, acquittals did have a question which would have to prevail by the patent under suspicion by explains to the accused as the The court is satisfied by falling to the accused, which would need to be eliminated pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. Taking the article (217 / 1), disciplinary action, as what is contained in the operative part of the judgment.