between the penalty which they decide and the maximum limit that legally prescribed in accordance with the foregoing Article. Secondly: When the penalty is singled out towards the convict under Article (45/a) & (b) if it is found in its judgments reason for failure to impose death penalty whenever fate deemed to be life imprisonment. The trial court sentenced the convict to 15 years in prison with a fine and upheld by the appeal court in contravention of the offence prescribed under Article (45/b) read in conjunction with Article (86/f) by reason of going beyond the maximum and minimum limits prescribed for commitment of such offence as the minimum limit is 20 years in prison with a fine. The legislator` objective of imposing such fine is to compensate the victimized child against abuses she sustained and harms resulting from the offence. So, and in accordance with the provision ofArticle (83/3) the trial court must decide upon such compensation. This Article is read as follows ((the judicial bodies shall ensure for all children being victims of the offences provided for in Articles 45/46, the availability of appropriate proceedings for obtaining, without discrimination, an indemnity for harms which are caused to them by persons who are legally responsible for these offences. For further details please see the criminal circular 46/2011 which refers to allocation of part of the fine for such objective by way of indemnity without prejudice to the right to blood money or indemnity for certain wound (Arsh). Please refer to page 294 of the Child Criminal Protection previously referred to. This penalty is imposed in contravention of law and the victim has not been indemnified. So, I am in the opinion that this necessitated us as a court of law to intervene. This opinion is supported by what is contained in the trial of Idris Fadul vide No. 56/2017 dated 21/08/2017/National Supreme Court unpublished, which is similar to this trial in terms of singling out the penalty contrary to the provisions of Child Act. I am in the opinion that the trend of our intervention, if both my colleagues the members of the circuit agree, to be on the basis of the provision of Article (185) Paras (b) & (h) of Criminal Act which prevents us from strengthening the penalty. The conclusion of our opinion is as follows: 1. Upholding the conviction under Article (45/b) which to be adjusted and read in conjunction with Article (86/f) of Child Act for 2010. 2. Returning the papers to the trial court so as to act in accordance with the directives of this memorandum. Abd Al Latif Mohamed Al Amin Supreme Court Judge 23/04/2018 Second Opinion: I agree with my colleague`s first opinion Judge Abd A Latif in terms of causation and result and addition to his memorandum.