Polaris Bank (SKYEBA.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Banking sector has released it’s 2012 abridged results.For more information about Polaris Bank (SKYEBA.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Polaris Bank (SKYEBA.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Polaris Bank (SKYEBA.ng) 2012 abridged results.Company ProfilePolaris Bank formerly (Skye Bank Plc) is a financial services institution in Nigeria offering banking products and services in the retail, commercial, corporate, treasury and investment banking sectors. The Retail Banking division provides a full service offering ranging from transactional accounts, deposits and term savings accounts to consumer loans and mortgages. The Commercial Banking division provides direct debit facilities, current accounts, deposits, overdrafts and loans as well as credit facilities, foreign currency and derivative products. The Treasury, Corporate and Investment Banking divisions offer financial instruments trading, structured financing and corporate leasing products. Other services offered by Skye Bank Plc include money transfer services, insurance brokerage, micro-financing, capital market, registrar and property development services. Skye Bank Plc’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. Subsidiaries of Skye Bank Plc include Sky Bank Sierra Leone Limited, Skye Bank Gambia Limited and Skye Bank Guinea Limited. Polaris Bank formerly (Skye Bank Plc) is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
Arbico Plc (ARBICO.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Building & Associated sector has released it’s 2020 annual report.For more information about Arbico Plc (ARBICO.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Arbico Plc (ARBICO.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Arbico Plc (ARBICO.ng) 2020 annual report.Company ProfileArbico Plc is a leading construction and civil engineering company in Nigeria responsible for building major residential, commercial, industrial and hospitality projects as well as key infrastructure projects. The company offers services such as pre-construction and estimating, design, build and project management as well as engineering, procurement and construction management services. Arbico Plc has been involved in the construction of major projects in Nigeria spanning residential, commercial, industrial and hospitality projects as well as a number of key infrastructure projects for the government of Nigeria. Flagship projects include residential projects such as No 7 Oniru in Lagos, Oba Elgushi residence in Lagos and SKA residence in Lagos; public assembly projects such as the Rose of Sharon Centre in Lagos; commercial projects such as Feyide House in Lagos and KAAF Building in Ogun State; hospitality projects such as Park Inn Hotel in Ogun State; industrial projects such as the Coleman Factory Development in Ogun State; and infrastructure projects such as NBC Asejire Plant in Oyo and the effluent/water treatment plant in Ogun State. Arbico Plc was founded in 1958 and is a subsidiary of R28 Limited. The company’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. Arbico Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
Astoria Investments Limited (ATIL.mu) listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius under the Financial sector has released it’s 2020 interim results for the first quarter.For more information about Astoria Investments Limited (ATIL.mu) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Astoria Investments Limited (ATIL.mu) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Astoria Investments Limited (ATIL.mu) 2020 interim results for the first quarter.Company ProfileAstoria Investments Limited is an investment company with permanent capital. The company runs its operations in the United States, Europe, Asia, South Africa and Mauritius. Astoria Investments invests in global equity dominated holdings of primarily direct, high quality listed businesses. The company invests in sectors such as technology, insurance, pharmaceutical, entertainment, financial, consumer products, retail and transportation. Astoria Investments Limited has a primary listing on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius and a secondary listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
Anna Sokolidou does not have any positions in any of the companies mentioned in this article. The Motley Fool UK owns shares of and has recommended Unilever. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Carnival, Diageo, Just Eat Takeaway.com N.V., and Tesco. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. See all posts by Anna Sokolidou Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. The March 2020 stock market crash was horrible. And the rebound was quite impressive. But now the markets are volatile because of the second wave of coronavirus infections.So, what are the best FTSE 100 shares to buy now? 5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…Contrarian investingMy colleague Matthew Dumigan took a rather contrarian approach to investing, which I like. He is bullish on stocks like Cineworld, easyJet, Carnival, and Taylor Wimpey. While I like contrarian investing, for me, these shares are too high-risk/high-reward. Tourist companies, airlines, housebuilders, and cinemas are heavily impacted by Covid-19. At the same time, if they survive the pandemic, they will flourish. But the problem is that we don’t know when it will be over and how much time it’ll take for these businesses to recover. Best FTSE 100 shares to buySo, a more defensive investor would probably be better off looking elsewhere. Very well, but which FTSE 100 shares should investors be interested in? In my view, some of the easy-to-understand businesses that operate properly in spite of Covid-19 are better alternatives. First, an investor has to think about what consumers need, regardless of the economic cycle and the pandemic. Consumers still need to eat and drink. Many are still probably unwilling to go to restaurants and cafes to do so. But they still go to supermarkets and order food and drinks home. So, classic “blue chips” from the nutritional sector still manage to make a profit. These seem to be Tesco, Coca-Cola, Diageo, and Unilever. Unilever also produces essential hygiene items for which consumers are also unwilling to cut their spending. Invest in momentum shares?I’d also like to talk about fashionable momentum stocks. What are they? Well, these equities seem to be the best FTSE 100 shares to buy now. They have dramatically increased their earnings the past quarter or the last 12 months. Two examples immediately come to mind. Food delivery services like Just Eat Takeaway and Ocado have become extremely popular during the pandemic. However, many investors forget that before Covid-19, these companies were not profitable. I don’t know when the pandemic will finally be over. But there is a risk that when it is over, the demand for food delivery services will fall, thus crashing these two companies’ business. What to do in a stock market crash?There is plenty of volatility now. But it is important to try to buy low and avoid panicking when stock market indexes crash. I’ve mentioned buying reliable blue chips, but it’s essential to avoid overpaying for a stock. In order to do so, you have to check its multipliers – its price-to-earnings (P/E) and price-to-book (P/B) ratios. If they are high, then a stock is most probably overvalued. A good example of this is AstraZeneca. It might seem that a large pharmaceutical company will always benefit from situations like this. But AstraZeneca’s P/E ratio of over 100 is extremely high. Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, disliked a P/E ratio of over 20. Imagine how he would react to a P/E of over 100! So, choose sectors carefully but look at the accounting multipliers too. Some other qualitative information like the recent corporate news is also needed to make sound decisions. Enter Your Email Address Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Anna Sokolidou | Wednesday, 17th June, 2020 I think these are the best FTSE 100 shares to buy now as markets crash I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Image source: Getty Images.
Enter Your Email Address See all posts by Karl Loomes Image source: Getty Images The end of the coronavirus seems ever closer. Today, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine added its name to the list of positive results. Moving away from the obvious, however, I think there are a number of non-pharmaceutical that will benefit from the news.Non-pharm, non-travel, Covid-19 sharesI’m staying away from both pharmaceutical and travel companies. Firstly, the benefits to pharmaceutical companies may seem obvious, but I think they should not. I doubt coronavirus vaccines will make any firm much profit directly, at first. The public outcry and government efforts would make it a PR and moral nightmare. It is likely big-Pharma will have to produce the vaccines for a long time though. When the headlines die down, then they will make money.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…As for travel firms, I think the future is far too uncertain. Covid-19 vaccine news may be helping holiday shares, but I think this is too much too soon. The industry could have seen a fundamental change even if and when the coronavirus ends.With that in mind, here are two non-pharmaceutical, non-travel ‘Covid shares’ I like right now.BPMy first choice for a stock that will benefit from a vaccine is oil giant BP (LSE: BP). My opinion here is predominantly based on oil prices. The end of Covid-19 will see people begin to travel again. And fear will be removed from the markets. Both these factors benefit oil prices.The crude oil market does have some underlying weaknesses – namely spare capacity. However, I think major oil producers like Russia and OPEC will self-regulate this to support prices.Though all oil majors will benefit from stronger crude prices, I think BP is a prime choice as an investment. It is heavily investing in green energy, which should secure its long-term future. In the meantime, it is undergoing some restructuring that will make it more efficient.What’s more, at current levels it is paying a dividend in the 9% region. Personally, this is my top choice Covid-19 share right now.HSBCAgain, perhaps not an obvious choice, but let me explain. HSBC (LSE: HSBA), along with most other banks, has put in place large provision for bad loans. These provisions are precautions against potential losses from customers failing to repay loans. The coronavirus, lockdown, and a potential recession brought this about. If a Covid-19 vaccine helps life get back to normal, a recession could be avoided, and shares across the banking sector will benefit.I should say the possibility of a recession is still far from over, though personally I am optimistic. The Chancellor has already laid out his priority of supporting the economy at the cost of national borrowing. The government will do everything it can to avoid recession.My choice of HSBC compared to other banks is based on what I consider its underlying strengths. Even aside from a Covid-19 vaccine, it is undergoing a restructuring that will see overheads reduced and (I think) its share price bolstered.It will be shifting capital from its weaker European and US arms to its main hub in Hong Kong. This is another key component that I think could help its finances over the long term.I have been bullish on HSBC for quite a while. With some mild reservations about the future of the economy, I think it is one of the cheaper Covid-19 shares worth considering right now. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Karl Loomes | Monday, 23rd November, 2020 | More on: BP HSBA Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Karl has shares in BP and HSBC Holdings. The Motley Fool UK has recommended HSBC Holdings. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. 2 Non-pharmaceutical ‘Covid shares‘ I like right now “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement.
Sweden CopyAbout this officeBornstein Lyckefors ArchitectsOfficeFollowProductWood#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesÖjersjöSwedenPublished on April 09, 2018Cite: “Öjersjö-House / Bornstein Lyckefors Architects” 09 Apr 2018. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
WhatsApp By Digital AIM Web Support – February 24, 2021 Twitter Facebook WhatsApp Local NewsBusiness Pinterest Twitter Evoqua Water Technologies Announces Upcoming Investor Events Facebook TAGS Pinterest PITTSBURGH–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb 24, 2021– Evoqua Water Technologies (NYSE:AQUA), an industry leader in mission-critical water treatment solutions, today announced that it will participate in four upcoming investor conferences in March. Ron Keating, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Ben Stas, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, will participate in a virtual presentation at the Raymond James 42nd Annual Institutional Investors Conference, beginning at 12:30 p.m. EST on Monday, March 1, 2021. This conference will be webcast. Mr. Stas and Ariel Kuperminc, Corporate Treasurer, will participate in a virtual presentation at the J.P. Morgan Global High Yield & Leveraged Finance Conference, beginning at 10:45 a.m. EST on Tuesday, March 2, 2021. Mr. Stas and Herve Fages, Executive Vice President, Applied Product Technologies Segment President, will participate in the NYSE Energy & Utilities Virtual Investor Access Day, beginning at 9:00 a.m. EST on Thursday, March 4, 2021. Mr. Stas will participate in a virtual presentation at the J.P. Morgan Global Industrials Conference, beginning at 4:30 p.m. EDT on Monday, March 15, 2021. This conference will be webcast. The participants named above and Dan Brailer, Vice President of Investor Relations, will participate in virtual group discussions during these events. Webcast registration and audio replay for the events that will be webcast, as noted above, will be available on Evoqua’s Investor Relations website, https://aqua.evoqua.com. About Evoqua Water Technologies Evoqua Water Technologies is a leading provider of mission critical water and wastewater treatment solutions, offering a broad portfolio of products, services and expertise to support industrial, municipal and recreational customers who value water. Evoqua has worked to protect water, the environment and its employees for more than 100 years, earning a reputation for quality, safety and reliability around the world. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the company operates in more than 160 locations across ten countries. Serving more than 38,000 customers and 200,000 installations worldwide, our employees are united by a common purpose: Transforming Water. Enriching Life. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210224005892/en/ CONTACT: Evoqua Water TechnologiesInvestors Dan Brailer 724-720-1605 (office) 412-977-2605 (mobile) [email protected] Media Sarah Brown 506-454-5495 (office) [email protected] KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENT ENERGY BUILDING SYSTEMS OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES OTHER CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY SOURCE: Evoqua Water Technologies Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 02/24/2021 04:15 PM/DISC: 02/24/2021 04:15 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210224005892/en Previous articleEPR Properties Reports Fourth Quarter and 2020 Year-end ResultsNext articleAfter mental health break, a turnaround at Detroit Mercy Digital AIM Web Support
ColumnsTwo Tales of Judicial Indiscretion: Recent Controversial POCSO Decisions of Bombay High Court Dr. Kumar Askand Pandey30 Jan 2021 1:14 AMShare This – xIn January 2021, within a span of less than a week, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court delivered two judgments in separate cases of child sexual abuse, Libnus v. State of Maharashtra (hereinafter Libnus case) and Satish v. State of Maharashtra (hereinafter Satish case), that have been severely criticized by almost all and sundry as being bad in law. In fact,Satish case…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIn January 2021, within a span of less than a week, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court delivered two judgments in separate cases of child sexual abuse, Libnus v. State of Maharashtra (hereinafter Libnus case) and Satish v. State of Maharashtra (hereinafter Satish case), that have been severely criticized by almost all and sundry as being bad in law. In fact,Satish case caused such outrage that the rights bodies, National Commission for Women and National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, wrote to the Maharashtra Government to take steps to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court. On Wednesday January 27, 2021, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the controversial judgment upon Attorney General’s mention. What did the judge say? In Satish case, the Single Bench of Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala acquitted a 32-years old man of the charges under Sections 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) reasoning that as there was no “skin-to-skin” contact, therefore, the offence of sexual assault is not made out. Section 7 of the POCSO defines sexual assault as any non-penetrative contact with the victim with sexual intent. The minimum punishment for the offence of sexual assault is imprisonment for three years. The Court, however, maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which carries a minimum prison term of one year. Prior to the post- Nirbhaya amendments made to the criminal laws in the country, Section 354 prescribed two years as maximum punishment with no statutory minimum. The allegations against the accused-appellant in this case were that he had “pressed the breast” of the 12-year old prosecutrix, which fact was duly proved by the prosecution by adducing evidence, both circumstantial and direct. The Court noted that requirements of Section 7 are not met, as the survivor’s clothes were not removed and the appellant was also not able to remove her knickers, because when he tried to do so she shouted and he left the room, bolting it from outside. The Court said that the act of the appellant would at best be an act of “outraging modesty of a woman” as defined in Section 354 of IPC. The judge also said that the punishment under Section 8 of POCSO, for the offence defined in Section 7 is “disproportionate” to the seriousness of the act and, therefore, affirmed the conviction only under Section 354, IPC. In Libnus case, the same Bench acquitted a 50-year old man who was convicted by the Special POCSO Court for his act of holding the hand of a 5-year old girl, with his pant’s zip open. The survivor had also told her mother, the PW-1, that the appellant had taken her penis out of his pants and asked her to sleep with him. The appellant in this case was convicted for the aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of POCSO as well as Section 12 of POCSO in addition to Sections 354A and 448 of IPC. Aggravated sexual assault has the ingredients of Section 7 but because the act is committed in certain “aggravating circumstances”, inter alia,more tender age of the victim or relation of trust and confidence between the victim and the abuser. Section 10 carries a minimum prison term of five years. Section 11 of POCSO defines and Section 12 punishes the offence of sexual harassment. The ingredients of Section 11 of POCSO do not strictly overlap with the ingredients of Section 354A, IPC although both the offences share a common name. The Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO and instead convicted him under Section 354A of IPC. In this case as well, the judge noted the severe minimum mandatory punishment prescribed in Section 10 of POCSO and chose to convict under Section 354A (3) of IPC which carries a maximum prison term of three with no statutory minimum sentence stipulated thereof. While disposing of the appeal, the Court also noted that the appellant had already served five months imprisonment which was “sufficient” in view of the nature of his act and ordered his release. Meaning of non-penetrative sexual assault: The title of Section 7 of POCSO is “sexual assault”. As the phrase “assault” has not been defined in the POCSO, it must derive its meaning from Section 351 of the IPC, which indicates that for the offence of assault, no physical contact is required – leave aside “skin-to-skin” contact. The essence of the term assault lies in the apprehension of use of criminal force and the definition of “force” in Section 349 of IPC,only requires some physical contact with the another’s “body” or even “with anything which that other is wearing……that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling…”. Intentional use of force is criminal force “…in order to the committing of any offence”, reads Section 350 of IPC. Interestingly, though the title of Section 7 uses the word “assault”, the content of the provision, in fact, require physical contact with the victim, meaning thereby that force must be applied to bring the case within the ambit of this provision. Therefore, what is meant by Section 7 is use of criminal force, albeit the title uses the word “assault”. In mis-interpreting Section 7 to require “skin-to-skin”, the Court has done offence to both the statutory meaning of “force” and “criminal force” as well as to the long-established judicial understanding of these phrases. Looking at Section 7 of POCSO and Section 354 of IPC together, it is not possible to arrive at a logical conclusion that what is an offence under the latter is not covered under the former. Similarly, Section 354A (1) (i) of IPC, the offence which the Court said is made out against the appellant in the Libnus case, explicitly requires “physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures”. Sexual overtures may be both verbal and non-verbal. Therefore, what is an offence under Section 354A (1) (i) is necessarily an offence as defined in Section 7 of POCSO. Moreover, going by the testimony of the PW-1, the mother of the survivor, that the appellant had showed his penis to her daughter, his act is covered under Section 11/12 of POCSO for which the appellant’s conviction should have been sustained. Holding hand of a child with the zip of the pant open is clearly within the ambit of the definition of sexual assault (Section 7, POCSO) as well as sexual harassment (Section 354A (1) (i)). More severe punishment under the POCSO: In both the judgments, the Court seems to be reluctant to impose the more severe punishment prescribed under the POCSO, as it felt that the statutory minimum punishment under Section 8 (three years imprisonment) and Section 10 (minimum five years) is disproportionate to the gravity of the acts of the appellants. While the legality of minimum mandatory sentences are being challenged across the jurisdictions, a constitutional Court cannot escape from its liability to convict under appropriate provision of a penal statute without declaring the minimum mandatory sentence unconstitutional, cruel and degrading. Notably, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) declares that everyone has a right against cruel, degrading, and dehumanizing punishment. The Canadian Supreme Court in R v. Nur ( 1 SCR 773), declared minimum mandatory sentence for firearms offences as unconstitutional. Ignoring the reverse burden clauses of POCSO: The POCSO, in Sections 29 and 30, raises presumption of both actus reus and mens rea, respectively, upon proof of “foundational facts”. This effectively means that if the prosecution is able to show, by adducing cogent and credible evidence, prima facie existence of “foundational facts”, the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence by showing absence of mens rea. Importantly, this reverse burden can only be discharged by meeting the standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, a standard that ordinarily rests on the prosecution. The Court’s reasoning that “stricter proof” is required to sustain conviction under Section 7/8 of POCSO in Satish case as the offence carries more severe punishment falls flat on the face of the presumption of guilt envisaged under POCSO. In the Libnus case as well, there is a complete silence on the question of reverse onus. Conclusion: While desirability, utility and constitutionality of mandatory minimum prison terms are debatable, no Court can refuse to convict an accused for any offence whose case squarely falls within the four corners of statutory definition. In the Satish case, even if the Court was disinclined to award the more severe punishment under Section 8 of POCSO, it could have still maintained the conviction both under POCSO and IPC, while choosing the punishment under the latter. Interestingly, Section 42 of POCSO which enumerates IPC offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, does not include Section 354, thereby giving liberty and discretion to the Court to choose lesser of the two punishments. This discretion would not be available where the offence is punishable both under the POCSO and the IPC provisions as enumerated here, in which case the punishment greater in degree can only be awarded. In the Libnus case also, the Court’s indiscretion is profound in refusing to maintain the conviction under Sections9/10 and 11/12 of POCSO when the facts unequivocally establish the ingredients of the offence of aggravated sexual assault and sexual harassment. Imagine a situation where the victim is a male child. The dangerous implication of the two judgments is that in such a case the accused would not be punishable at all: firstly, because the Court thought that the POCSO provisions are not applicable and secondly, because Section 354 and 354A apply only in case of a female victim. While it is comforting that the Supreme Court stayed the Satish case, but the message sent out by the Bombay High Court is still damaging. It is hoped that the State of Maharashtra shall appeal against the judgment given in the Libnus case as well. While a penal statute should be construed narrowly, no person who is clearly hit by the plain words of a penal statute should be allowed to go scot-free or punished with disproportionately meager punishment for extraneous considerations and misinterpretation of law. Decisions of High Courts shape and unshape the law of the land and this cannot be done with scant regard for statutory and case law. We, as a society certainly deserve better judgments, both legally and logically. (Dr. Kumar Askand Pandey is Associate Professor (Law) at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.) The author is grateful to Anuarag Bhaskar, Lecturer, Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat for reviewing this article. Next Story
Brownsburg Fire Territory (BROWNSBURG, Indiana) — A 9-year-old Indiana boy denied a visit with Santa because of his service dog, received a Christmas surprise from the big man himself.Tyler had tried to visit Santa Claus at a local mall ahead of Dec. 25, however, he was turned away because he had his service dog with him, according to Deputy Chief of Operations for Brownsburg Fire Ryan Miller.Miller said Tyler is a child with autism and the dog, named Ryan, helps the boy control his emotions.When a family friend heard about Tyler’s situation, she contacted the Brownsburg fire department in hopes they could help.The department normally rides around town with Santa on their fire truck.On Monday, during their trip around the neighborhood, Tyler received his special visit.Santa hopped off the truck to meet the little boy, whose service dog was by his side the entire time.“We can’t solve all the world’s problems, but when we can make a difference we will step in,” according to a Facebook post from the Brownsburg Fire Territory.“It was an honor to be able to help bring a little Christmas joy to our friend Tyler,” another post from the fire department read.Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Official White House Photo by Shealah CraigheadBY: ELLA TORRES, ABC NEWS(PHOENIX) — The attorney general of Arizona issued a warning letter to a megachurch that claims its air filtration system “kills 99 percent of COVID within 10 minutes.”Attorney General Mark Brnovich sent the letter to Phoenix’s Dream City Church on Thursday, saying that their claim — which Brnovich said was not backed by any science — may be illegal.“In the absence of scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 specifically, statements suggesting that a product could provide nearly guaranteed protection from COVID-19 infections create a misrepresentation or a false promise. Misrepresentations and false promises are illegal under A.R.S. § 44-1522,” Brnovich wrote.The church, which can seat 3,000 people, had also claimed “when you come into [the church’s] auditorium, 99 percent of COVID is gone” and “you can know when you come down here, you’ll be safe and protected,” according to his letter.Dream City Church, which has six other locations, made some of the claims in a Facebook video ahead of hosting President Donald Trump this week. The video has since been removed.Dream City Church did not immediately respond to ABC News for comment. However, before the warning letter was sent, they issued a statement saying they used the words COVID and coronavirus interchangeably.“Our statement regarding the CleanAir EXP units used the word COVID when we should have said Coronavirus or COVID surrogates,” the church said. COVID-19 is the disease caused by the coronavirus, of which there is more than one.The church’s air filtration system was purchased from Clear Air EXP, Brnovich said.Brnovich sent a cease-and-desist letter to Clean Air EXP the same day, demanding the company stop advertising air purification systems with suggestions the systems neutralize COVID-19.He said that the company has and continues to advertise that its air filtration products eliminate 99.9% of “airborne coronavirus surrogates.”In a statement posted on the Clear Air Exp website, the company reiterated that claim.“Our coronavirus surrogate testing results are significant for the future of clean air,” the company claimed.Brnovich said the message is not based on scientific research or public health authority certification, and that the message implies Clean Air EXP’s products can prevent the virus’ transmission and infection.An expert who spoke to ABC News said the public should be skeptical of any technology that claims to eliminate all airborne viruses and especially COVID-19.Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.