Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 28

Summary: - An act committed by a public official while exercising his functions is not permissible unless performed in execution of an order that the law requires him to obey, while remaining within the limits of the order. Article 73 of the Penal Code. - Example of reasons for an acquittal because the accusation was not individually attributable and criminal responsibility was absent, an order having been issued to the official by his superior to disperse a gathering and the official having remained within its limits. Rule: Article 73 of the Penal Code means that an act committed by a public official while exercising his functions is not permissible unless performed in execution of an order that the law requires him to obey, while remaining within the limits of the order. That being so, the judgment under appeal shows that, after examining the facts of the case and the evidence on which the Public Prosecution relied to establish the accusation, it based its acquittal of the accused on the court's lack of confidence in the prosecution evidence, which did not conclusively establish that the accused committed the incident. The evidence adduced by the prosecuting authority fell short of the sufficiency required to convict him because the accusation was not individually attributable to him. The judgment accordingly acquitted the accused of the first charge against him. He had also received an order from his superiors to disperse the gathering outside the diwaniya of the seminar organizer. That order was issued by a superior who had to be obeyed, and the accused remained within its limits, thereby negating his criminal responsibility because a ground of justification applied to him, exempting him from punishment for the second charge. The judgment under appeal accordingly concluded by acquitting the respondent of both charges against him.