The decision issued by one of the honorable judges, which has never been seen in Iran

The decision issued by one of the honorable judges has never been seen in Iran!

Reading this verdict is necessary and obligatory for every citizen! Because many people are not aware of this matter at all!

Dr. Hamed Rahmanian, the judge of the 102nd branch of the Criminal Court of the 2nd district of Rodhan, in his ruling, has given a verdict for the acquittal of the accused, considering the rights of citizens and the prohibition of illegal acquisition of evidence of committing a crime! This kind of votes, decorated with certain legal rules and paying attention to the rights and freedoms of citizens, are definitely worthy of attention and praise from the legal circles!

Prosecution No. 9809972214500064, dated 1/28/1398, Branch 102 of the Criminal Court 2, Rodhan Division: regarding the accusation of Mr. Aydin, for carrying three liters of hand-made alcoholic beverages, the subject of the report of the police authority, which states: “During the patrol A woman was suspicious of a black colored Samand Soren passenger car, stopped the car in compliance with the traffic rules, and after seeing the car’s documents, with the permission of the car owner, a plastic container containing about three liters of hand-made alcohol was seen in the front seat of the student. ! Regardless of the fact that police officers do not have the authority to apply traffic regulations and stop cars on this pretext, considering that, firstly, according to Article 137 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the inspection of objects, including citizens’ cars, even in cases where According to the evidence and the Emirates, there is a strong suspicion of discovering the tools and evidence of a crime in it, it must be done with the order of the judicial authority and with the strong suspicion, and as a result, the officers cannot arbitrarily and under the pretext of suspicion, proceed to inspect the car. Do! Secondly, although the search of the car was done with the consent of the owner after the request of the officers, but since this consent was obtained either out of fear or ignorance or emergency of the owner, it is considered as non-consent! Because in a society where this illegal procedure is so customary and common that even the officers and judicial authorities themselves are unaware of its illegality, surely the ordinary citizens are also unaware of this matter and resist the request of the officers to inspect the car or out of ignorance. Either the fear of being considered a rebel or the urgency to avoid the consequences, they give in to this illegal demand of the officers! Thirdly, according to the 22nd article of the constitution, it is possible to attack the property and privacy of individuals only within the limits of legal authorizations, and it is obvious that the action of the officers in this case was without legal authorization! Fourthly, this justification and argument that if the officers do not act in this way, no crime will be discovered and the rights of the society will not be well protected, is clearly rejected; Because according to Article 9 of the Constitution, no official has the right, even in the name of preserving the independence and territorial integrity of the country, to deny legitimate freedoms, even if they impose laws and regulations, let alone in the name and under the pretext of discovering a crime! Fifthly, according to Article 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the report of the bailiffs is valid if it is prepared and regulated based on legal rules and regulations, and therefore, in this case, the report of the bailiffs, which is the only reason for the crime, is considered invalid and invalid. It will be! According to the above, the court issues and announces the acquittal of the accused in terms of the lack of legitimate reason to prove the crime and based on the principle of acquittal reflected in the thirty-seventh article of the Constitution! The issued decision is in person and can be challenged in the court of appeals of Tehran province within twenty days from the notification date!

Dr. Hamed Rahmanian, the judge of the 102nd branch of the Rodhen General Court! In line with civil rights, share as much as you can so that others are informed!

This post is written by Se09123