Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 86

Summary: - The court's omission to inspect the document forming the subject of the forgery action when hearing it vitiates the trial proceedings. Reason: it is an essential trial procedure because that document is the evidence bearing the indications of forgery and must be presented for examination and discussion at the hearing in the parties' presence, so that each may express his opinion and be assured that it is the document to which his submissions related. The first-instance court's omission to do so and the second-instance court's failure to remedy it render its judgment invalid. This is not altered by the notation on the sealed documents stating that the seal was broken, or by the second-instance court's recording in its judgment that it inspected the forged documents. Inspection must take place in the parties' presence. - The effect of cassation does not extend to a convicted person who was not a party to the appellate proceedings. Rule: The court's omission to inspect the document forming the subject of the action when hearing it vitiates the trial proceedings, because the court's own inspection of the forged document is an essential trial procedure in forgery offenses, required by its duty to scrutinize the principal evidence in the case, given that the document is the evidence bearing the indications of forgery. It must therefore be presented for examination and discussion at the hearing in the parties' presence, so that each may express his opinion and be assured that the document forming the subject of the action is the one to which his submissions related—a procedure the first-instance court failed to perform and the second-instance court failed to remedy. This is not altered by the notation on the sealed documents stating that the seal was broken, or by the second-instance court's recording in its judgment that it inspected the forged documents relating to the appellant, because inspection must take place in the parties' presence. That being so, the challenged judgment is defective in a manner rendering it invalid and requiring its cassation as regards the appellant, but not the fourth convicted person, who was not a party to the appellate proceedings in which that judgment was issued, and whereas the subject matter of the appeal is not ready for determination.