The Federal Supreme Court Red Sea and Kasla States Circuit Port Sudan Abdalrawoof Hasballah Malasy Ibrahim Mohammed Almaki Mohammed Abu-Bakr Mahmoud President Member Member The Trail of Alnazier Ajab Kafy No / meim /t. j / 25 / h J /2015 / Judgment The accused Alnazier Ajab Kafy was convicted before Halfa Algadida General Criminal Court under section 151 of the Criminal Law read with Section45 b and section 86/z of the Juvenile Act 2010. The convicted was subject to punishment of one-year imprisonment, a fine of three hundred SDG, and in case of failure to pay an imprisonment of anther three months to run in sequent as a fine substitute punishment. Upon an appeal to Kasla State Court of Appeal the court of appeal judgment came under No /a .seen.g /14/2015 dated 25/1/2015 amending the conviction to be under section 45. G read with section 86 z of the Juvenile Law Act 2010. The papers were referred to the Court of First Instance to review the punishment. This objection came on 15/2/2015 as a result of this Court of Appeal decision. I did not find a specific date on which the applicant had been summoned with appellate court decision; therefore we consider the objection as filed on time as specified in section 184 of the criminal procedure Act 1991 With respect to the subject and upon perusing all the papers, I would say the objection came lacking any reason or reasons. Despite this fact it's clear from all the evidence submitted that the Court of First Instance understanding of this evidence is inadequate. Therefore, it’s a must that we should reexamine it as the decision of the court of appeal expressed. The court of appeal ignored the fact that according to section 185 (g) of the Law of Criminal Procedure the appellate authority is banned from ruling a conviction with a crime of a greater and grieve punishment than that the accused was convicted for. It's apparent that the court of First Instance had concentrated on section 151 of the Criminal Law, and its apparent also that the punishment under the amended by court of appeal section, namely section 45- g – warrants infliction of a grieve punishment than for conviction under section 151 of the Criminal Law. In this case it’s a must that the case should be returned to the court of First Instance to review the conviction and the punishment inflicted. Another point that worth noting is that the convicted stated his age to be 16 years where as Prosecution Document (3) showed the age to be between 18 – 20 – When this document was shown to the convicted, he further repeated that his age is 16 years. The Court of first Instance is obliged to investigate on this issue as the punishment will depend on the age whether the punishment comes to be imprisonment or delivery to Juvenile home for reform. For the aforesaid I reasons I rule to uphold the gist of the judgment subject to Objection although this upholding is on a different ground.