Supreme Court 6.Criminal Division
Apartment: 6
Retrieved 2012
Base No: 2010/2170
Decision No: 2013/72
Source: UYAP
Related Articles: TCK 143 and 66 articles.
Related Concepts: 143.ARTICLE-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
T.C.
SUPREME
- Criminal Division
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
Y A R G I T A Y I L A M I
Basis No: 2010/2170 On Corruption
Decision No: 2013/72
Communique No: 6-2007/120398
DECISION UNDER REVIEW;
Court : Bakırköy 1. Criminal Court Of First Instance
Date: 13/12/2006
Number: 2005/1081 (E) and 2006/999 (K)
Accused: Mehmet Metin NAZLICAN
Crime: theft
Sentencing: conviction
Appellant : defendant’s defense
Thought in the communique : disruption
The sentence given by the Local Court was appealed; the file was discussed according to the nature of the application, type of punishment, duration and date of crime:
493/1, 102/3, 104/2 of tcy No. 765, which corresponds to the action of the accused. according to articles 142/1-b, 143/1, 53, 66/1-e, 67/4 of tcy No. 5237, which entered into force on 01.06.2005, which corresponds to the same crime. as a result of the application of the articles separately and as a whole, 7/2 of the aforementioned law, 9/3 of law 5252. in light of the articles, the provisions of law 5237 in terms of the statute of limitations are for the benefit of the accused and the same law from 17.04.2000 until the date of review 66/1-e, 67/4. 12-year period stipulated in the articles,
8/1 of law 5320, since the appeal of the defense of the accused Mehmet Metin Nazlican and the thought in the communique were seen in place with this reputation, the provision was broken for the reason described, the reason for the violation does not require a retrial. through Article 322 of Cmuk No. 1412. based on the authority granted by the article, it was decided by a vote on 14.01.2013 that the public case filed against the defendant should be dropped due to the statute of limitations.
