The office of public prosecution accused a defendant of issuing bounced cheques. The office requested the court to penalise the defendant under to the relevant laws.

The court ruled that the defendant should be imprisoned for two years.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation. He said in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation. He said that the court had issued the ruling against him although the criminal case had been dismissed because it was not submitted within four months of cheques’ issuance. He said that the elements of the crime had not existed in this case.