Court of Cassation dismisses criminal case after expiry of legal time limit
In a landmark ruling, the Criminal Court of Cassation, chaired by Counselor Abdullah Jassim Al-Abdullah, has dismissed a criminal case after determining that it failed to reach the Court within the legally prescribed five-year period, as stipulated under Articles 6 and 8 of the Penal Code. The case was classified as a misdemeanor.
In its verdict, the Court affirmed that it may, on its own initiative, or upon request from either party, raise matters related to public order at any stage of the legal proceedings. It noted that the expiration of a criminal case due to the passage of time constitutes an issue of public order, and may therefore be invoked at any phase of litigation, reports Al-Jarida daily.
The ruling cited Article 6 of the Penal Code, which provides that, “The criminal action in misdemeanors shall lapse after five years from the date of the crime’s occurrence.”
It also referred to Article 8, which states that, “The period during which the criminal action lapses shall be interrupted by the procedures of accusation, investigation, trial or inquiries taken against the accused or of which he was officially notified. In no case may the period be extended due to interruption by more than half of it.”
The Court explained that, based on these provisions, a criminal case lapses five years after the crime’s occurrence, unless interrupted by official legal procedures against the accused.
However, even in cases of interruption, the total duration may not exceed seven and a half years (five years plus half the period).
In this instance, the Court found that more than seven and a half years had passed between the date of the alleged offense on May 15, 2015, and the date on which the appeal was submitted to the Court of Cassation. As a result, the criminal action was deemed time-barred.
The Court therefore ruled to overturn the appealed judgment and dismiss the criminal case due to the expiration of the statutory limitation period, without the need to consider the remaining grounds for appeal.
