COURT OF CASSATION 27 April 1901 MM. Saleh Sabet Pasha (Pres.); de Hults, Cassem Amin Bey, Youssef Chawki Bey, Coghlan, (JJ.); Muhammad Safwat Bey (State Rep.). STATE REPRESENTATIVE v. ROUMAN SALEH IBRAHIM AND OTHERS (I. C. Cr. Pr. Arts. 173, 174.—II. C. Cr. Pr. Arts. 173, 174, 220). I. Correctional Tribunal—Primà facie case of Crime—Declaration of want of jurisdiction—Appeal. II. Cassation—Substantial ground of nullity—Correctional Tribunal—Primà facie case of crime—Declaration of want of jurisdiction—Appeal—Second declaration of want of jurisdiction—Second appeal—Evocation. I. The decision by which a summary judge, before whom a charge of misdemeanour is brought, declares that he has not jurisdiction to try the case, since in his opinion the facts show a primà facie case of crime (Art. 173 C. Cr. Pr.), is not to be regarded as a mere measure of preliminary examination, but as a judgment declining jurisdiction. An appeal will therefore lie against such decision. II. When a judgment, by which a summary judge has declined jurisdiction, since the case is primà facie one of crime (Art. 173 C. Cr. Pr.), is reversed on appeal, the summary judge before whom the case is brought afresh is bound by the decision given on appeal. If he declines jurisdiction a second time, and this last decision is appealed against, the Court before which the appeal is brought must allow that the appeal will lie and determine the case on its merits by evocation (¹). If therefore such Court decides that no appeal will lie in the circumstances mentioned, this decision is subject to Cassation, as vitiated by a substantial nullity. (¹) Cf. Cass. 5 November 1898 (El Cada VI, 4).