A senior official of a large municipality is sued for false ideology in 1999.
After several months of investigation, the prosecutor asked that the proceedings, why do not erano emersi fatti penalmente rilevanti, "quanto meno sotto il profilo soggettivo".
Proposta opposizione dalla parte offesa, il G.I.P. "disponeva l'espletamento di ulteriori indagini".
Nel 2001, espletate le ulteriori indagini, il P.M. formulava altra richiesta di archiviazione perché "non vi è materiale per sostenersi sussistenza di alcun fatto penalmente rilevante".
Il G.I.P., per la seconda volta, a seguito di nuova opposizione respingeva la richiesta, ordinando il compimento di ulteriore attività di indagine.
Nel 2002, il P.M. reiterava la richiesta di archiviazione ritenendo che "le indagini continuano a confermare l'insostenibilità in giudizio di accuse di falso ...".
Third bit of opposition and at this point, the GIP ordered the PM "the formulation of imputation relation to the offense for which today we proceed."
passed two years after that order had been carried out without further investigation, and, finally, in March 2004, the PM requests of trial, but was declared invalid by the failure to GIP to view art. 415 bis cpp, return of documents to the PM, who, for some reason, no longer asked the trial, but again (May 2004) because the filing "does not appear in any predictable way a condemnation of the criminal case stated by GIP. Yet another objection
bit and the declaration of inadmissibility of the request of the PM by the GIP, which again ordered him to formulate the charges relating to the offense originally assumed.
been nearly two years without further investigation, in March 2006, the PM finally formulated the charge and asked for feedback.
But, surprise, surprise, here is the decision of the GIP as is apparent from this particular sentence.
"The evidence gathered during the preliminary investigations are not suitable to support the charge in today's court proceedings against the accused as to the offense charged, as repeatedly stated by the PM owner of investigations into the four storage requirements fully - Albeit briefly - motivated.
In fact, careful evaluation of the documentation of ...., subscripts do not indicate the existence of the alleged offense and to make useful the prosecution in the trial. "
Based on this reasoning," is imposed against the accused of today's decision of a ruling not to prosecute pursuant to art. 425 Code of Criminal Procedure because the crime does not exist. "
The tambourine has lasted seven years, but I think no one is amused.
0 comments:
Post a Comment