Ploughing forests property – conviction – authorization – inspection – probation of the report.
The court issuing the appealed decision supported the lower court ruling the innocence of the defendant from the misdemeanor of ploughing inside forests property for reason that he provided an authorization giving him permission by the water and forests office to exploit the property subject of this litigation. however the court did not assess what was stated in the inspection report made by the said office that the aforementioned authorization submitted by the defendant did not apply to the property subject of the exploitation, and it did not estimate the defendant statement in the report, in which he recognize not having an authorization to plough the land where he was found. The court therefore did not admit the probation of this report and violate the Article 66 of the Dahir 10/10/1917. Thus, its decision is not well founded and should be overruled.