يتهم الادعاء العام موكلنا لمخالفته

يتهم الادعاء العام موكلنا لمخالفته المادة (5) من قانون سلامة الغذاء التي تنص على انه (لا يجوز تداول المواد الغذائية الا اذا كانت مطابقة للاشتراطات والمواصفات القياسية المعتمدة من الجهة المختصة) .
والثابت ان المتهم السابع ليس له اي يد في تداول الارز المضبوط .
والفرق واضح للمحكمة بين تداول الغذاء وتداول اكياس فارغة ، اذ ان دورة المذكور في التحقيقات والذي اقر به و الوارد كذلك بالمستندات انه باع اكياسا فارغة لا تحتوي على اي مواد غذائية والمادة (5) من قانون سلامة الغذاء تجرم تداول المواد الغذائية الغير مطابقة تحديدا وهو نص خاص لا يجوز تعميمه او التوسع فيه وفق صحيح تطبيق القانون .
كما يتهم الادعاء العام موكلنا بمخالفة المادة (7) والمادة (20) من قانون حماية المستهلك ، اما عن المادة (7) فهي تختص بتداول السلع ، والسلع تم تعريفها تحديدا بانها كل منتج صناعي او زراعي او حيواني او تحويلي ولا تعتبر الاكياس واحدة من هذه الاشياء التي تم تعريفها في القانون نفسه ، اما المادة (20) تتحدث عن ترويج السلع والاعلان والدعاية عنها وكما هو ثابت في تحليل الوقائع وملف الدعوى ان المتهم السابع وباقي المتهمين كافة لم يمارسوا اي نوع من انواع العرض او الترويج او البيع او الدعاية او الاعلان للسلعة المضبوطة محل الاتهام .

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 1:

Prosecutors have accused of violating article (5) of the food safety law, which provides that (food may be traded only if they conform to the standard requirements and specifications approved by the competent authority).And hard to seventh suspect has no hand in the exact rice trading.A clear difference between handling food and empty bags trading, as the cycle mentioned in investigations and recognized and contained also the documents he sold empty bags don't contain any food article (5) of the food safety law criminalizing non-conforming foodstuffs trading and is a special text shall be circulated or expanding it according to the correct application of the law.Prosecutors have also charged with violating article (7) and (20) of the Consumer Protection Act, article 7 is concerned with the circulation of goods, and goods are defined specifically as agricultural or industrial product or animal, bags are not transferring one of these things that are defined in the law itself, article (20) talk about promotion and advertising and it is constant in the analysis of the facts and the case file that the accused rest seventh defendants all didn't engage in any type of Types of offer or promotion or sale or publicity or advertising of the goods seized were replaced.

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 2:

Prosecutors accuse the public of our client for violating Article (5) of the Food Safety Law , which states that he (may not be traded foodstuffs only if they comply with the requirements and standards approved by the competent authority.)
And hard that the seventh defendant has no hand in the rice exact trading.
The difference clear to the Court of food handling and circulation of empty bags, as that mentioned in the investigation cycle, which passed by and contained as well as the documents he sold empty sacks does not contain any food and Article (5) of the food safety criminalizes the circulation of material non - matching food specifically the law of a particular text It may not be circulated or expand it according to the correct application of the law. He is
also accused prosecutors of our client with violating Article (7) and Article 20 of the consumer Protection Act, either Article (7) are concerned with the circulation of goods, and the goods specifically defined as any industrial product or agricultural, animal, transformative not considered bags are one of those things that are defined in the law itself, either Article 20 speaks of merchandising, advertising and publicity it is also a constant in the analysis of the facts and file the lawsuit that accused the seventh and the rest of the defendants all did not exercise any kind of types of presentation or promotion, sale or publicity or advertising of the product the exact place of the charge.