under No.: 77 of the Penal Code of the year 1991, as the general look of the accused, who are policemen, except the first and second accused, is that they are drunk and the public nuisance in the area is probable and continued the reasons for review ending with that, the decision issued by the Court of Appeal must be cancelled and the judgment issued by the Trial Court shall be recalled. By perusing the process of the Court, we find that, the Criminal Court had viewed the facts in the light of the evidence received and concluded that, the elements of sections 152 and 154 of the Penal Code do not exist, yet, the elements of section (77) public nuisance exist against them, as they may probably cause public nuisance, as the circumstances read and their presence at that late time with people who are not related to him by a sharia bond. I was of the opinion that the accused have violated section 154 of the Penal Code by practicing prosecution, when they have been arrested in a closed apartment where they can probably practice sexual acts. Paragraph (2) of the same section, provides that, prostitution means any place prepared for gathering of males and females who are not related by marriage bonds nor relatives, in circumstances, where sexual acts may probably occur. The evidences received were the statements of the policemen who have raid the apartment and arrested the accused from inside the apartment under a search warrant, however, this evidence was received contrary to the principles of the Islamic Sharia Law, because they admitted that they had climbed the walls and opened the door by force. This evidence is deemed inadmissible pursuant to section (9) of the Evidence Act, as it violates the principles of the Islamic Sharia Law, that is based on sanctity of places and veiling, and forbids the violation of privacy. Although the Search Warrant was contrary to Section (87) of the Criminal Procedures Act, that the Court may build its conviction on it if it has been satisfied with it, but that shall not be away from the rules concerning rejected evidence, and whereas, the evidence shall be rejected under section (9) of the Evidence Act, if it violates the principles of the Islamic Sharia, and that Sharia has forbidden climbing walls and ordered people to enter houses through their doors, and has provided that, anyone who veils him/herself and does not show his/her bad behavior to the public, shall not be legally liable. Prophet Mohammed stated that, whoever commits such dirty acts- means acts contrary to Sharia- shall veil him/herself and that, who shows his dirty acts shall be punishable under Sharia Law, as stated by Prophet Mohamed – God’s peace be upon him. Pursuant to that, I don’t see anything that supports the validity of the conviction, whether under Section 154 Penal Code of the Penal Code, or public nuisance under section (77) of the Civil Code, especially, if it was not proved that accused have committed any act that may probably cause public nuisance. I agree with the advocate, that, the public nuisance provided for under section (77) of the code, does not protect a specific person but protect the public at large in the area where public nuisance occurs, if ever proved.