Gold smuggling case: Verdict in favor of Nishida in false complaint.

In December 2019, a woman named Sheeja Mohammed filed a false complaint at Wasit Police Station in Sharjah against a woman named Nishida Latif, alleging that she had stolen gold worth 138,000 dirhams (Rs. 28 lakhs). The complaint alleged that Sheeja had handed over the gold worth 138,000 dirhams to her friend Nishida to bring it back home, but Nishida had promised to bring the gold back home, but instead of going home, she took the gold and drowned with it. Sheeja filed such a false complaint in anger at the fact that she was not a party to the gold smuggling.

Later, the case reached the Sharjah court. In the hearings held before the prosecution, Nishida repeatedly denied having committed the crime. However, Sheeja produced witnesses and made them testify falsely. She also showed a fake receipt for buying the gold from a jeweler. However, Nishida's lawyer did not appear at the court-ordered hearing or submit a reply memorandum. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Sheeja. That is, the verdict was to send Nishida to jail for a month, then deport her, and force her to pay the amount due.

Since the first lawyer demanded a higher amount and Nishida did not have the money to do so, Nishida approached Salam Pappinissery, a prominent legal representative and social activist in the UAE, to file an appeal in order to get justice in this case. After the case came before him, she prepared a memorandum questioning the issues in Sheeja's complaint and filed an appeal.

The memorandum stated that there was a difference between the amount stated in the complaint filed by Sheeja at the police station and the amount stated before the court and the amount stated in the receipt from the jeweler from whom the gold was purchased, and what was Sheeja's job to buy gold for such a large amount, what was the source of that amount, and that normally, the receipt received from the jeweler would have included labor charges, but it was not included in that receipt, its number was not recorded in the VAT column, the receipt shown was not from the correct jeweler, official or correct, and that the complaint was false.

In addition, the memorandum stated that the complainant and the first witness had threatened Nishida by giving her 10,000 dirhams to withdraw the case, not to appear in court, and that the case would be withdrawn later, and that Nishida was ready to hand over the threatening messages and documents to the court, and therefore, Nishida should be found innocent and the complaint and the first verdict against Nishida should be dismissed.

The opposing party's false complaint could not stand up to the strong arguments put forward by Nishida's lawyer. The court found Nishida Latif innocent in the appeal case and awarded court costs against the opposing party.