"The withdrawal of the category from an indictment, with the result set forth in section 84 of the aforementioned law [referring to section 84 of the old Criminal Procedure Law, which included an arrangement identical to that currently prescribed in section 94(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law in its current version - J. 20], is under the exclusive control of the category and is not subject to the supervision of the court. A matter in which the categor retracted, after bringing evidence, from the only charge in the indictment, under section 83 of the aforementioned law. The court is obligated, therefore, to acquit, as stated in section 84, and even for another offense it is not entitled to convict by virtue of its authority under section 166 above" (ibid., at p. 475, emphasis added - Y. 20).
As for the possibility Appellate Tribunal shall convict a defendant of an offense of which the accuser retracted her request to be convicted - this possibility was also addressed by this court, in its judgment inCriminal Appeal 242/63 Kiriti v. Attorney General, IsrSC 18(3) 477 (1964) (hereinafter: The Kiryat Matter), where the judge noted C. Berenson The following:
"It seems to us that the path taken by the District Court was not open to it. Counsel for the appellant rightly argues that by this conviction the District Court has exceeded its authority. The jurisdiction of the District Court under the aforementioned section as an appellate court is 'to render the same judgment that in its opinion should have been given in the court of the headquarters on the charge and the evidence brought before it'. Was the Magistrate's Court entitled to return at the end of the hearing to the fifth item and convict it, after it was initially included in the indictment and deleted with the consent of the prosecution's counsel on the basis of the objection of the defendant's counsel? It seems to us that it is not, precisely because it was and was deleted. and if the Magistrate's Court was not permitted to return to it, the District Court could not have done so either" (ibid., at pp. 485-486; Emphasis added - 10:20).