authority does not indicate misapplication of the law. And, refusing to exercise that authorization does not constitute a perceptible violation of the law that should justify the interference of our court as a court of law to impose its opinion. Nevertheless, that does not hinder a court of appeal from opting to examining the procedures stating that there is a need for examination to help achieve justice, taking into consideration the criminal nature of the lawsuit and what has been brought up in the appeal before it to be adopted as a basis for exercising that authorization pro forma. Based on what has been mentioned above, I see no error in the procedures appealed against, and that the Court of Appeal is not obliged to examine those procedures as it had approved of the validity of those procedures and the need to abide by the time limit of the appeal – for all the above I see that the request be cancelled, awaiting the opinions of my honorable colleagues. Mohammed Mostafa Hammed Justice of the Supreme Court 2015 After viewing the date of submitting of the two appeals by the convicted; Mohammed Abdullah Fadul Said and Ibrahim Zakaria Ahmed Omer they were presented on 15/8/2013, where the (5) was amended to be (3), i.e. the date would be 13/8/2013. And after checking the agenda of the Judiciary of the year 2013 I found out that 31/7/2013 (the date they were sentenced) was a Wednesday from which began the time limit of the 15 days determined for submitting the appeal, and that ended on Wednesday 14/8/2013. Thus, I see that if there had been a doubt about whether the appeal was submitted on 13/8/2013 or 15/8/2013, it should be interpreted in their favor, i.e., the date of submitting the appeal was 13/8/2013, and hence I believe they were submitted within the 15-day time limit in accordance with Article (183) of the Criminal Procedures Code of 1991. That should not refute the statement that they were submitted to the judge authorized to grant the appeal who signed them on 22/8/2015. I summarily believe that there was a delay in the arrival of the documents to the said judge. Hence, I see that the ruling of the Court of Appeal be revoked and that the documents be returned to it to view those two appeals from a subjective perspective and with enough reason begun with a summary of the established facts. With all due respect to the honorable colleague of the first opinion. Hashim Omer Abdullah Justice of the Supreme Court 27/5/2015 Final Judgment;