National Supreme Court Criminal Circuit Before: H.E. Hashim Abdullah Mohammed……………. President. H.E. Yahya Fadul Mohammed Fadul………… Member H.E. Mohammed Mostafa Hammed……………. Member Trial of; Mohammed Abdullah Said and others No. M A/ F G/H8/2015 Judgment In a non-summarily trial under the number G I/17/2013, The court of the Municipality of Malleet convicted the above-mentioned persons; Adam Abdullah Fadluseed Ibrahim Zakaria Ahmed Omer, under Article 49/2 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced each to seven years as of the date they were detained on 6/5/2013 with the addition of one hundred lashes. The two convicted persons presented a petition of appeal against the ruling where the Court of Appeal in North Dar fur issued decision no A S G/100/2013 ordering the cancellation of the appeal pro forma as it was submitted after the passing of the time limit determined by law. Now, lawyer Moneer Mohammed Khatirr submitted the attached examination request on behalf of the convicts which we accept pro forma as it is void of a time limit. Regarding the subject, the reasons for examination are summed up in that there was no solid evidence for the conviction of the two persons, and that what was mentioned in the Medical report that the plaintiff’s hymen had been removed a long time earlier does not firmly lead to the conviction of the two accused, besides, the circumstantial evidences in the reasons for conviction does not lead to convicting the two accused men. Finally, the lawyer presenting the examination plea requests that his request be accepted and that a suitable ruling be issued. Having seen all the relevant documents and the ruling that was appealed against, we find that the Court of Appeal decided to cancel the appeal for having been presented outside the time limit, and that it did not intervene by exercising the authorizations confided to it under Article 188 of the Criminal Procedures Code and examine the procedures. It is quite known that the authority to examine is an unprompted one that the Court of Appeal can exercise, be it by its own discretion or in response to a plea presented to it. Choosing not to exercise that discretional