After the papers have been brought forward before the Supreme Court, the punishment was amended as to be under Article (45/c) along with the amendment of the imprisonment punishment to seven years as from 07/02/2016 and a fine of one thousand pound of which three thousand is to be paid as a compensation to be collected by civil way ….etc. under the judgment in respect of the appeal in cassation No. 88/2016 dated 13/06/2016 Later, on 25/10/2016, the appellant`s attorney submitted a request before the Trial Court for referring the appellant to the Medical Commissioner to estimate his age. This was declined by the Trial Court which led to the submission of the request in question for examination. It is clear that the Trial Court had no other option except for declining the request as long as a judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court upholding the conviction with the amendment of the punishment as stated hereinabove. This makes the contested judgment of the appeal court to be valid and should have to be upheld since the request has not been submitted in the preliminary procedures as contained in the petition of the appeal in cassation, but after the Supreme Court adjudicated over the subject matter thereof making the matter going beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. On consideration of the premises, the judgment the object of the request contained an observation to which the court has not paid any attention. It was clear that the convict has announced his age as 68 years old (Sixty-Eight years) since the phase of investigations through the trial form. The accused failed to challenge this and the Court has not verified his age. This means that the Court has adopted the age announced by the accused. Then, the matter did not require further searching as the convict was believed in the age which he announced. The Court did not initiate any investigation over the age and should have taken the calculation of age into the assessment of punishment but it has no power now after the issuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court on the subject matter. Even the Supreme Court has no power to intervene in the judgment it delivered except through review under Article (188/a) of the law, if required. THEREFORE I am of the opinion that we should uphold the appeal judgment the object of cassation in appeal and order to bring the papers forward before the Supervisor of the Review Circuit to take whatsoever he deems appropriate in connection with causing to follow the provisions of Article (33/4) of the Criminal Act or 1991 read with Article (48) thereof. Derar Yousif Sayed Ahmed Supreme Court Judge 06/04/2017 Agree: Shawqi Osman Ahmed Supreme Court Judge 20/04/2017 Babiker Mohamed Babiker Al Tenay Supreme Court Judge 07/05/2017