Filling the Void: Number of Vacant Properties Reduces

first_img Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago About Author: Kendall Baer Related Articles Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago in Daily Dose, Featured, Foreclosure, News  Print This Post Realty Trac Zombie Properties 2016-09-07 Kendall Baer Share Save Tagged with: Realty Trac Zombie Properties Home / Daily Dose / Filling the Void: Number of Vacant Properties Reduces September 7, 2016 1,145 Views Kendall Baer is a Baylor University graduate with a degree in news editorial journalism and a minor in marketing. She is fluent in both English and Italian, and studied abroad in Florence, Italy. Apart from her work as a journalist, she has also managed professional associations such as Association of Corporate Counsel, Commercial Real Estate Women, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and Project Management Institute for Association Management Consultants in Houston, Texas. Born and raised in Texas, Baer now works as the online editor for DS News. Filling the Void: Number of Vacant Properties Reduces The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days agocenter_img Subscribe Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Sign up for DS News Daily Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Previous: The Ups and Downs of Consumer Housing Sentiment Next: International Document Services Acquires Encomia Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Nearly 1.4 million U.S. residential properties representing 1.6 percent of all residential properties were vacant as of the end of the third quarter according to the Q3 2016 U.S. Residential Property Vacancy and Zombie Foreclosure Report released by ATTOM Data Solutions, parent company to RealtyTrac. It was also reported that the number of vacant properties decreased 3 percent from the previous quarter and was down 9 percent from a year ago.The report states that ATTOM Data Solutions analyzes publicly recorded real estate data collected by the company, including foreclosure status, equity, and owner-occupancy status, and matches the data against monthly updated vacancy data from the U.S. Postal Service.As of the end of the third quarter, the report states that 18,304 U.S. residential properties actively in the foreclosure process were vacant. This represents 4.7 percent of all residential properties in foreclosure. In addition, the number of zombie foreclosures decreased 5 percent from the previous quarter as well as decreased 9 percent from Q3 2015.It was also noted that there were 46,604 vacant bank-owned residential properties as of the end of the third quarter. This was a reported increase of 7 percent from the previous quarter and up 67 percent from Q3 2015.“A strong seller’s market along with political pressure has likely motivated lenders to complete the foreclosure process over the past year on many vacant properties that were lingering in foreclosure limbo for years,” said Daren Blomquist, senior vice president at ATTOM Data Solutions. “While that has reduced the number of vacant properties in the foreclosure process — so-called zombie foreclosures — it has also resulted in a corresponding rise in the number of vacant bank-owned homes. Assuming that the foreclosing lenders are maintaining these properties and paying the property taxes, they pose less of a threat to neighborhood quality than zombie foreclosures, but they still represent latent inventory in an inventory-starved housing market.”The report says that the states with the most vacant REO properties as of the end of the third quarter were Florida with 5,880 properties, Michigan with 4,661 properties, Ohio with 3,585 properties, Illinois with 2,652 properties, and Georgia with 2,626 properties.In addition, the report states that among 148 metropolitan statistical areas with at least 100,000 residential properties analyzed, those with the most vacant REOs were Detroit with 2,386 properties, Chicago with 2,379 properties, Miami with 1,880 properties, Philadelphia with 1,737 properties, and New York with 1,668 properties. The report notes that other metro areas in the top 10 for most vacant REOs were Baltimore with 1,649 properties, Atlanta with 1,573 properties, Tampa with 1,310 properties, Cleveland with 1,106 properties, and Flint, Michigan with 1,091 properties.States with the most vacant foreclosures, or zombie properties, were New Jersey with 3,698 properties, New York with 3,556 properties, Florida with 2,528 properties, Illinois with 1,018 properties, and Ohio with 999 properties. The report also says that metro areas with the highest number of vacant foreclosures included New York with 3,590 properties, Philadelphia with 1,525 properties, Chicago with 783 properties, Miami with 694 properties, and Tampa with 603 properties.A total of 1,035,813 U.S. residential investment properties were vacant as of the end of Q3 2016. This was 76.1 percent of all vacant properties nationwide and the report says that it represents 4.3 percent of all investment properties as well.It was reported that states with highest investment property vacancy rate included Michigan at 10.3 percent, Indiana at 9.8 percent, Alabama at 6.9 percent, Mississippi at 6.6 percent, and Kansas at 6.5 percent.ATTOM Data Solutions also included the metro areas with the highest investment property vacancy rate which included Flint, Michigan at 24.3 percent, Detroit at 12.6 percent, Youngstown, Ohio at 12.1 percent, South Bend, Indiana at 11.5 percent, and Indianapolis at 11.0 percent. The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days agolast_img read more

The Distinction Between “Cognizable Offence” And “The Curial Act Of Taking Cognizance Of An Offence”

first_imgColumnsThe Distinction Between “Cognizable Offence” And “The Curial Act Of Taking Cognizance Of An Offence” Justice V. Ram Kumar5 May 2020 9:15 PMShare This – x INTRODUCTION I retired from the High Court of Kerala in the year 2012. During my tenure as a Judge in the High Court all the Chief Justices while fixing the roster, were giving me mostly criminal jurisdictions and I metamorphosed into a confirmed criminal judge, although as a lawyer, I was practicing exclusively on the civil side. While I was convalescing after an…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?Login INTRODUCTION I retired from the High Court of Kerala in the year 2012. During my tenure as a Judge in the High Court all the Chief Justices while fixing the roster, were giving me mostly criminal jurisdictions and I metamorphosed into a confirmed criminal judge, although as a lawyer, I was practicing exclusively on the civil side. While I was convalescing after an influenza during the COVID-19 lockdown period, Advocate Mr. Shyam Padman from Calicut sent me a message inviting me to render a lecture in the “10th Legal Empowerment through Interaction Lecture series”. Accordingly, true to my functional proclivities, I signified my consent to give a lecture on a subject in criminal law. Fortunately, I was already grappling with a problem posed before me in connection with the tackling of the violators of COVID-19 lockdown. This is that subject. I gave the lecture on 03-05-2020 at 3:30 PM in a Zoom meeting arranged by Advocate Mr. Shyam Padman.  THE DOUBT RAISED 2. The doubt raised was the following:- Q) On the complaint lodged by a policeman (a public servant) on duty on 20-03-2020 who was controlling the violators of the lockdown at Kozhikode, an FIR is registered against the violators by the S.H.O of the Kozhikode Kasaba Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897(Central Act 3/1897) and for an offence punishable under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. Section 3 of Central Act 3/1897 says that any person disobeying any regulation or order made under that Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 188 IPC the first part of which is punishable with simple imprisonment for 1 month or fine of Rs.200 or both. The latter part of Section 188 IPC where the disobedience causes danger to human life, health, safety etc., is punishable with imprisonment up to 6 months or fine of Rs.1000 or both. As per Column (4) of the First Schedule to Cr.P.C, the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC is a “cognizable offence”. But as per Section 195 (1) (a) (i) Cr.P.C, cognizance by a Magistrate of the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC can be taken only on the complaint of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The offence under Section 117 (e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, by virtue of Section 125 thereof, is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years and/or fine. No specific mode of cognizance by the Court is stipulated by the Kerala Police Act. (a) Can the S.H.O register an FIR and conduct investigation and submit a charge sheet in respect of the offence under Section 3 of Central Act 3/1897 also? (b) Can the Magistrate take cognizance of the said offence in the absence of a complaint by the policeman on duty or his official superior? 3. There is much confusion at least among a sizeable section of the Bench and the Bar regarding the distinction between the two concepts referred to above. Column (4) of the table of offences in the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C indicates which all offences are cognizable offences and which all offences are non-cognizable offences. In the Explanatory Note given at the beginning of the First Schedule it is stated that the word “cognizable” stands for ” a police officer may arrest without warrant” and the word “non-cognizable” stands for ” a police officer shall not arrest without warrant”. “Cognizable offences” are relatively graver offences and are, therefore, non-bailable. “Non-cognizable offences” are relatively less graver offences and hence bailable except Sections 194,195,355,466,467,476,477,493 and 505 (of the Indian Penal Code) which are non-bailable. 4. The expression “cognizable offence” has nothing to do with the process of “taking cognizance of an offence” by a Court. This process of “taking cognizance of an offence” by a Court can be called “cognizability” of an offence. Regardless of the question as to whether the offence is “cognizable” or “non-cognizable”, the process of “taking cognizance of the offence” by the Court is a must for both, if the Court were to proceed further either on the “complaint” or on the “police report”.  COGNIZABLE OFFENCE 5. What is a “cognizable offence”? The expression “cognizable offence” has been defined under Section 2(c) Cr.P.C as follows:- “(c) “Cognizable offence” means an offence for which and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant.” When a complaint alleging the commission of a cognizable offence is lodged before the officer-in-charge of a police station (i.e. Station House Officer-S.H.O) he has to mandatorily register an FIR in view of the statutory compulsion under Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. There is, however, the Judge-made law that the S.H.O, before registering an FIR, can conduct a preliminary inquiry in the following cases:- To ascertain whether the information received discloses a cognizable offence.In matrimonial disputes/family disputes.In commercial offences.In medical negligence cases.In corruption cases, and vi. In cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in lodging the complaint. When once the S.H.O registers an FIR, the offence being a “cognizable offence”, the S.H.O has the authority under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C to conduct investigation of such offence without the order of a Magistrate. If he has reason to suspect the commission of a “cognizable offence” he can enter on investigation into the offence in view of Section 157 Cr.P.C. Here the S.H.O has no freedom to consider whether the information given regarding the cognizable offence is true or credible. In other words, the S.H.O has no authority to examine the veracity of the allegations in the complaint regarding the commission of the cognizable offence. (vide Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1- 5 Judges). (With due respect, the concept of preliminary inquiry conceded to an S.H.O is totally alien to the Cr.P.C. “Inquiry”, whether preliminary or final is the exclusive domain of the Magistrate and not the police. Preliminary inquiry is an unnecessary Judge-made conundrum. Such a discretion of conducting a preliminary inquiry by the S.H.O before registering an FIR, is definitely liable to be abused by unscrupulous police officers. Even assuming that the authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry could be ceded to the S.H.O in a limited category of cases, the conclusion made in Lalita Kumari that the scope of preliminary inquiry is only to examine whether the information received by or the complaint made to the S.H.O discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or not, does not appear to be correct. It may be necessary to make a cursory glance into the history of preliminary inquiry. In the concurring judgment of Mudholkar- J in State of U.P. v/s Bhagwant Kishore Joshi AIR 1964 SC 221 – 3 Judges, it was observed as follows:- “Merely making some preliminary enquiries upon receipt of information from an anonymous source or a source of doubtful reliability for checking up the correctness of the information does not amount to collection of evidence and so cannot be regarded as investigation. In the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or implied, I am of opinion that it is open to a Police Officer to make preliminary enquiries before registering an offence and making a full scale investigation into it.” The above passage was affirmed and approved in paragraph 78 of State of Haryana v/s Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 = AIR 1992 SC 604 – para 80. In paragraphs 17 and 19 of P. Sirajuddin v/s State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595 = AIR 1971 SC 520, the Apex Court held as follows;- “Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general.” (Emphasis supplied by me) The above observations were noted with approval in paragraph 53 of State of Bihar v/s P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222; paragraph 77 of State of Hariyana v/s Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; paragraph 14 of Navin Chandra N. Majithia v/s State of Meghalaya (2000) 8 SCC 323 – 3 Judges; para 23 of Sashikant v/s CBI (2007) 1 SCC 630 = AIR 2007 SC 351; paragraph 17 of Ashok Tshering Bhutia v/s State of Sikkim (2011) 4 SCC 402. The two judges (Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam and Dr. Justice B.S. Chawhan) who constituted the Bench which rendered the verdict in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v/s State of Sikkim (2011) 4 SCC 402 observed as follows :- “6. This Court in P. Sirajuddin and Others v. The State of Madras and Others, 1970 KHC 428 : 1970 (1) SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240 : AIR 1971 SC 520 : 1971 CriLJ 523; and State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 KHC 600 : AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : 1992 CriLJ 527 has categorically held that before a public servant is charged with an act of dishonesty which amounts to serious mis – demeanor and an FIR is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. Such a course has not been adopted by the prosecution though the law declared by this Court is binding on everyone in view of the provisions of Art.141 of the Constitution, which would by all means override the statutory provisions of the CrPC and such an irregularity is not curable nor does it fall within the ambit of S.465 CrPC.” (Emphasis supplied by me) What prompted the Apex Court in Sirajuddin’s case to direct a preliminary enquiry before a crime was formally registered against a public servant, was the fact that a public servant could be an easy target for disgruntled favour-seekers to vex him with false and frivolous prosecutions in case their attempt to curry official favours from the public servant could not fructify. Hence, before registering a case against such public servant the Officer-in-charge of the Police station should conduct some informal enquiry to examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the public servant. In other words, it is only if the SHO is convinced regarding the veracity of the allegations after conducting the informal preliminary enquiry, would he be justified in registering a case against the public servant. The two Judges who thus opined that the aforesaid observations in Sirajuddin’s case as approved in Bhajan Lal was the law declared by the Supreme Court and binding on all by the force of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and even overriding the status law, however, made a clean somersault sitting in a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v/s Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 – 5 Judges, to hold that the scope of preliminary enquiry was only to find out whether a cognizable offence was made out in the complaint lodged. If it is not for examining the genuineness of the information or the complaint, why should there be a preliminary inquiry by the S.H.O. Even in category (vi) referred to above, if there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint, it is really the veracity of the complaint which is examined by the S.H.O through the preliminary inquiry. There is not even a whisper in Lalita Kumari regarding the correctness or otherwise of the earlier decisions including Sirajuddin’s case which is virtually upheld in para 117 of Lalita Kumari. None of those earlier decisions has been overruled. There is not even a dissent. No doubt, Lalita Kumari is by a Constitution Bench. But it came before the Constitution Bench evidently on a reference. Hence, fairness demanded that Lalita Kumari either approved or disapproved those earlier decisions particularly when Ashok Tshering Bhutia stated in no unmistakable terms that the law laid down in Sirajuddin would override the statutory provisions in the Cr.P.C and was binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and also that any violation of the said law would not be curable under Section 465 Cr.P.C).  NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCE 6. The expression “non-cognizable offence” has been defined under Section 2(l) Cr.P.C as follows:- “(l) “non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “non-cognizable case” means a case in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.” In the case of a “non-cognizable offence”, apart from the fact that a police officer has no authority to arrest the offender without a warrant, he cannot also register an FIR or conduct investigation without the order of the Jurisdictional Magistrate in view of sub-section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. The said Section reads as follows:- “(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” If an S.H.O receives a complaint alleging the commission of a “non-cognizable offence”, he has to enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book prescribed by the State Government and then refer the complainant to the Magistrate concerned under Section 155 (1) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate concerned means the Magistrate having jurisdiction to either try the case or commit the case for trial to the Court of Session. Instead of directing the complainant under Section 155 (1) Cr.P.C to approach the Magistrate for an order under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C, it is also open to the S.H.O to himself obtain the permission of the Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C and then start investigation. (vide Para 12 of State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan (2014) 3 SCC 659). When what we have today is a “Janamythri Police”, there is nothing wrong in the S.H.O himself approaching the Magistrate and taking orders under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. The SHO will have jurisdiction to investigate into a “non-cognizable offence” only after the Magistrate having jurisdiction has issued an order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.  MIXED COMPLAINT ALLEGING BOTH COGNIZABLE AND NON- COGNIZABLE OFFENCES 7. Supposing the complaint lodged before the S.H.O alleges the commission of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences. Should not the S.H.O refer the complainant to the Magistrate for an order under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C with regard to the non-cognizable offence? The answer is in the negative. Where the complaint alleges the commission of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, then, by virtue of Section 2(c) read with Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C it should be treated as a “cognizable case” and consequently, the S.H.O derives power under Section 156 (1) Cr.P.C to investigate the case without the order of the Magistrate concerned. It is pertinent to notice that Section 156 (1) Cr.P.C guardedly uses the expression “cognizable case” and not “cognizable offence”. In this context, it may be worthwhile to mention that I had occasion to pen an article pointing out an error committed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Kerala in James Jose v. State of Kerala 2019 (3) KHC 531 where the verdict rendered was overlooking the concept of “cognizable case” in Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C.  IF THE COGNIZABLE OFFENCE, AFTER INVESTIGATION,TURNS OUT TO BE A NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCE 8. A situation can arise whereunder after registering an FIR in a “cognizable case” (involving at least one “cognizable offence” and one or more “non-cognizable offences”) the S.H.O on completion of investigation discovers that the “cognizable offence” alleged is not made out and that both or all the offences are “non-cognizable”. What will be the nature of investigation conducted by him in respect of those “non-cognizable offences” without obtaining the prior order of the Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C? It is here that the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C comes to the rescue of the S.H.O. Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C which defines the expression “complaint” and the “Explanation” thereto, are given below:- “(d) “Complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.– A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant”. In the contingency referred to above, the S.H.O can file a “report” before the Magistrate and such “report” shall be deemed to be a complaint and the S.H.O who has filed the “report” shall be deemed to be the complainant. The Magistrate can take cognizance of the “non-cognizable offences” made mention of in the deemed complaint and can proceed accordingly. One thing to be noticed here is that for the application of the Explanation to Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C, it should be a “cognizable case” to begin with involving at least one “cognizable offence” and the S.H.O, after investigation, discovers that the offence involved is really a “non-cognizable offence” and not a “cognizable offence”. If at the threshold itself no “cognizable offence” is alleged or if all the offences alleged are “non-cognizable offences”, then the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C is not attracted. In other words, Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C covers only those cases where the S.H.O initiates investigation into a “cognizable offence” but the offence made out after investigation, is a “non-cognizable offence”. (vide Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar (1996) 11 SCC 557).  TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AN OFFENCE 9. Regarding the curial process of taking cognizance of an offence, the matter is covered by Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C. Sections 190 to 199 in that Chapter are the relevant Sections pertaining to the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. The 4 sources on which a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence have been enumerated under Section 190 (1) Cr.P.C. They are (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting the offence. Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C. (b) Upon a police report under Section 2 (r) Cr.P.C. (c) (i) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer (eg: a news item in the print or electronic media or in the internet). (ii) Upon the own knowledge of the Magistrate (eg: where an offence is committed in the very presence of the Magistrate). The two common sources on which cognizance is usually taken by the Magistrates are the complaint (loosely called a “private complaint”) and the police report. The expression “taking cognizance of an offence” has not been defined under the Cr.P.C. We have, therefore, only the Judge- made law on the subject. If a Magistrate, on receiving a complaint, applies his mind for the purpose of proceeding under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C (starting with Section 200 onwards), he may legitimately be said to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. (vide Para 35 of Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64). If on receiving a police report the Magistrate applies his mind and takes the case on file against all or any of the accused persons for all or any of the offences alleged and issues process, he can legitimately be said to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. (vide Paras 68 to 80 of Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 7 SCC 440 = AIR 2015 SC 2514). CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN OFFENCES 10. Chapter XIV Cr.P.C lays down the pre-conditions to be followed in respect of certain classes of offences before a Court can take cognizance of those offences. The following are those classes of offences:- Section 191. Where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under (c) above, the accused has to be informed of his right to exercise his option to have the case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate. This is because the Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the offence is virtually in the position of a complainant and any possible bias on the part of the Magistrate can be got over by the accused by exercising this option. Section 192. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) is given the power to make over a case for inquiry or trial either before or after taking cognizance of the offence.Section 193. Barring a few exceptions, a Court of Session can take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction only if the case has been committed to that Court for trial by the appropriate Magistrate under Section 209 Cr.P.C.Section 194. The Sessions Judge of a Division is given the power to make over cases for trial to the Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges.Section 195 (1) (a). Where certain specified offences have been committed before a public servant and the offender is to be prosecuted for contempt of the lawful authority of such public servant, the offender can be prosecuted either for the said offence or any abetment, attempt or criminal conspiracy in respect of such offence only by such public servant or by another public servant to whom the public servant concerned is administratively subordinate. (The offences covered by Section 195 (1) (a) are Sections 172 to 188 IPC and any abetment, attempt or criminal conspiracy to commit such offences. Out of the aforesaid offences, those punishable under Sections 175 and 188 IPC are cognizable and the rest are non-cognizable). Section 195 (1) (b). Where certain specified offences have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court or in respect of any document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, he can be prosecuted either for the said offence or any criminal conspiracy, or attempt or abetment in respect of such offence only by that Court or its authorized officer or by some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (The offences covered by Section 195 (1) (b) are Sections 193 to 196, 199 , 200, 205 to 211, 228, 463, 471, 475 and 476 and criminal conspiracy or attempt or abetment to commit those offences. Out of those offences, Section 228 and 471 are cognizable and the rest are non-cognizable). Section 195-A. Where a witness in a case is threatened, he or any other person can file a complaint for prosecuting the offender for an offence punishable under Section 195-A of IPC. (Here the witness or any other person can file a complaint before the Court by which the offence of giving false evidence is triable).Section 196. There is an embargo against any Court taking cognizance of certain specified offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit those offences except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government or the District Magistrate, as the case may be. (The offences by this Section are those punishable under Sections 121 to 130, 153-A, 295-A, 505 (1) (a), (b) and (c), 505 (2) and (3). Out of the above offences 505 (1) (a) and (b) alone are non-cognizable. The rest are cognizable).Section 197. There is an embargo against any Court taking cognizance of any offence committed by Judges, Magistrates or other Public Servants including persons employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or the States, members of the Forces including police, military personnel, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be.Section 198. There is an embargo against any Court taking cognizance of offences against marriage under Chapter XX of IPC except on a complaint by the specified aggrieved persons. (Here the offences are punishable under Section 493 to 498 IPC all of which are non-cognizable).Section 198-A. There is an embargo against prosecuting a person for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC except upon a police report or upon a complaint made by the specified aggrieved person. (Here the offence covered by the Section is Section 498-A which is cognizable if the complaint is given to the S.H.O by the persons specified in Column 4 of the table in the First Schedule to Cr.P.C).Section 198-B. There is an embargo against prosecuting a person for an offence punishable under Section 376-B IPC except upon a complaint filed by the wife where the parties are in a marital relationship. (The offence covered by this Section is Section 376-A of IPC which is cognizable). Section 199 (1). There is an embargo against prosecuting a person for the offence of defamation punishable under Chapter XXI of IPC except upon a complaint by the aggrieved person. (vide Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600- 3 Judges).(The offences covered by this Section are Sections 500 to 502 of IPC all of which are non-cognizable and cognizance by the Court only on a complaint by the aggrieved person). Section 199 (2). There is an embargo against prosecuting a person for an offence of defamation punishable under Chapter XXI IPC against the President of India, Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory, a Minister of the Union or of a State or Union Territory or any other Public Servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or the State except upon a complaint in writing by the Public Prosecutor before a Court of Session. (The offences covered by this Section are Sections 500 to 502 of IPC all of which are non-cognizable except upon a complaint by the Public Prosecutor before the Court of Session or on a complaint by the person aggrieved before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in view of Section 199 (6) Cr.P.C). The above provisions (items (v) to (xiii) above) in Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C will suggest that even a cognizable offence can become non-cognizable (not in the sense of Section 2(l) Cr.P.C) unless the pre-conditions specified in the respective sections have been complied with. The interdict against taking cognizance is on the Court.  THE CURIAL ACT OF TAKING COGNIZANCE IS APPLICABLE EVEN IN THE CASE OF NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCES 11. There is a misconception at least in some quarters that a Magistrate need take cognizance only of a cognizable offence and he need not take cognizance of a non-cognizable offence. The distinction between a “cognizable offence” and a “non-cognizable offence” has already been seen. Those expressions “cognizable offence” and “non-cognizable offence” have nothing to do with the curial process of “taking cognizance of an offence”. Whether the offence is “cognizable” or “non-cognizable”, the process of taking cognizance by the Magistrate is a must if the Magistrate wants to proceed further. It may be profitable to make mention of an instance where a learned Judge of a High Court in India had quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C the cognizance taken by a Magistrate with regard to a “non-cognizable offence”. Evidently, the learned Judge was laboring under a misconception that it is impermissible for the Magistrate to take cognizance of a “non-cognizable offence”. As already mentioned, every offence, whether “cognizable” or “non-cognizable” has to be necessarily taken cognizance of by the Magistrate if he is desirous of proceeding further in the matter. In the above instance the Advocate who argued the case was equally at fault in, either nocently or innocently, taking the Judge for a ride.  WHERE THE OFFENCE IS COGNIZABLE BUT COGNIZANCE BY THE COURT IS STATUTORILY INSISTED ONLY ON A COMPLIANT 12. Yet another area of confusion is in cases where the offence may be “cognizable” entitling the S.H.O to register an FIR and enter on investigation without the order of the Magistrate but the cognizability of the offence by the Court is statutorily restricted to be taken only on a “complaint” by a specified person. While on the one hand, we have the S.H.O, who by virtue of the fact that the offence is a cognizable offence, would be entitled to conduct investigation and file a final report, on the other hand, we find the Court being debarred from taking cognizance of the offence on such final report in the absence of a complaint by the designated person. In such contingencies, if we apply the ratio of the Apex Court in Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada (2012) 6 SCC 353 = 2012 (2) KLT 415 the Court can take cognizance of the offence on the police report notwithstanding the fact that a “complaint” by the designated person is missing or is absent. In Ushaben’s case arising from the Gujarat High Court, the offences were Sections 494 IPC (non-cognizable and cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the aggrieved person in view of Section 198 (1) Cr.P.C), Section 498-A of IPC (cognizable offence and cognizance can be taken on a police report in view of Section 198-A) and Section 506 (2) of IPC which is a non-cognizable offence. The Supreme Court of India took the view that if any of the offences is cognizable, then the power of the police to register a crime, conduct investigation, arrest the offender without a warrant and submit a final report before the Court under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C cannot be denied and that the statutory direction with regard to one of the offences being cognizable only on a complaint, will have to yield to the power of the police to file a police report and accordingly the Court was held entitled to take cognizance of the offence. But, it may be noted that this was not strictly a “cognizable case” within the meaning of Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C because the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC apart from being non-cognizable was one which could be taken cognizance of only on a complaint. According to my humble view, Ushaben was wrongly decided. In Subash Babu A v. State of AP (2011) 7 SCC 616 = AIR 2011 SC 3031 arising from the State of Andhra Pradesh, the offences were punishable under Sections 417 IPC (non-cognizable), 420 IPC (cognizable), 494 and 495 IPC (which had been made cognizable by a State amendment of the year 1992). So it was a clear instance of a cognizable case within the meaning of Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C and the Apex Court rightly held that it was open to the police to conduct investigation and file a police report on which the Magistrate could take cognizance. Unlike our present problem, Subash Babu did not contain any offence which could be taken cognizance of only on a complaint. Hence, Subash Babu is clearly distinguishable. In State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay (2014) 9 SCC 772 = AIR 2015 SC 75 it was held that even though Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957(MMDR Act for short), insists on a complaint for the contravention of Section 4 (1A) of the said Act, the offence which was held really made out was one of theft under Section 378 IPC and punishable under Section 379 IPC which is cognizable. It was therefore held that the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act would not apply. So, this case is also clearly distinguishable.  ANSWER TO THE DOUBT RAISED 13. Now, let us try to answer the question posed. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (Central Act No. 3 of 1897) which came into force on 04-02-1897 in the whole of India except the territories which, immediately before 01-11-1956, were comprised in Part B States. In the given problem, the offence was committed in Kozhikode where the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987 was in force. As per Section 3 of the said Act, any person disobeying any regulation or order made under the Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 188 IPC which as per Column (4) of Part I of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C, is a cognizable offence. But as per Section 195 (1) (a) (i) Cr.P.C a Court can take Cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 188 IPC only on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Supposing a police officer enforcing the lockdown in connection with COVID-19 epidemic, is obstructed, that will be deemed to be an offence committed by the obstructer under Section 188 IPC and by virtue of Section 195 (1) (a) (i) Cr.P.C the police officer concerned will have to prosecute the offender by means of a complaint. The additional offence punishable under Section 117 (e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 although a cognizable offence, does not improve the position. The offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, no doubt, is cognizable. But it can be taken cognizance of only on a complaint by the public servant concerned. The question of treating the case as a cognizable case, as was done in Subash Babu does not arise. Therefore, the public servant may have to lodge a complaint before the Magistrate concerned and the Magistrate, after taking cognizance, if need be, can forward the complaint for investigation under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C and then proceed according to law, after receipt of the report of investigation.  THE STATUTORY COMBAT OF EPIDEMIC DISEASES 14. It was by invoking the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (Central Act No.53 of 2005) that a national “lockdown” was clamped in India as per the Order dated 24-03-2020 passed by the National Disaster Management Authority for ensuring social distancing by directing shops and commercial establishments other than essential services to be temporarily closed and also directing the people of India to remain confined to their homes with a view to curb the spreading of the COVID-19 virus. Taking the cue from the above order, the Government of Kerala also swung into action by issuing appropriate directions from time to time. Those who had come from abroad and who had crossed inter-district terrains were directed to observe either home quarantine or quarantine at enclosures provided by the Government. Persons who showed symptoms of the corona virus attack have been and are being isolated either in hospitals or other places where facilities for treatment are available. Sections 51 to 58 in Chapter X of the Disaster Management Act provide for the offences and their penalties. Since the imprisonment prescribed is for a term less than 3 years, by virtue of Part II of the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C those offences are non-cognizable and bailable. As per Section 60 of the said Act cognizance of the offences by the Court can only be on the strength of a complaint by the persons specified therein and that too after giving 30 days’ notice in the prescribed manner. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (Central Act No.3/1897) which came into force on 04-02-1897 had application only to the erstwhile Malabar area which was part of the Madras Presidency and the said Act had no application to the rest of the State of Kerala, namely the Travancore-Cochin area which was comprised in the Part B States prior to 01-11-1956. Taking note of this anomalous situation, the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020 (Ordinance No.18/2020) was promulgated by the Governor of Kerala and published in the Kerala Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 27-03-2020 having its operation throughout the State of Kerala. As per Sections 5 and 6 of the said Ordinance persons who contravene or disobey any regulation or order made thereunder or obstruct any officer acting under the Ordinance or any abettor of such an offence, are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years and/or fine which may extend to Rs.10000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand). Section 7 of the Ordinance declares that the above offences are cognizable and bailable. 15. In the meanwhile, the President of India has promulgated the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance No.5 of 2020, inter alia extending the Act to the Part B States prior to 01-11-1956 and incorporating two more penal provisions as sub-sections (2) and (3) to Section 3 of the principal Act and declaring those new offences as cognizable and non-bailable. There is also a provision for compounding of offences. 16. I have not in the present context examined the question as to whether Central Act 3/1897 as amended by the Central Ordinance 5/2020 and State Ordinance 18/2020 occupy the same field of legislation under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India or whether there is any fatal repugnancy rendering State Ordinance 18/2020 or any portion thereof void.  C O N C L U S I O N 17. My sincere endeavor in this lecture has been to emphasize the distinction between “cognizable offence” on the one hand and the curial process of “taking cognizance of an offence” on the other. As we have already seen, both these expressions are distinct and different and, in a way, unrelated.Views Are Personal Only(Author is Former Judge,High Court of Kerala) Next Storylast_img read more

Barnwell takes six-for before scoring a century as DCC dominate UG

first_imgCHRISTOPHER Barnwell enjoys the University of Guyana’s (UG) bowling. Yesterday he stormed to his third consecutive century against the side in two-day cricket, but he also proved his might with the ball, by registering a five-wicket haul. It is the second time in his career that he has scored a century and picked up a five-wicket haul – the first was also against UG.In the GISE/Star Party Rentals and Trophy Stall first-division two-day cricket clash, Barnwell delivered one of his best bowling figures at this level – 6-16 from eight overs – to lift the home-team Demerara Cricket Club (DCC), to a first-innings lead.When bails were lifted after day one, UG were on 0-0, two overs into their second innings, trailing by 207 runs.   Batting first the visitors were undone by the ferocity of Barnwell’s fast medium bowling. After K. Roberts had sent him for a six and a four in the opening over, Barnwell recomposed himself in his second over to get three quick wickets.From 12 without loss, UG struggled to 8-36 before Pavindralall Persaud and Yekini Favourite put together 58 runs for the ninth wicket. Persaud was particularly destructive after settling in. The middle-order batsman struck four consecutive sixes and a four in a top score of 39, while Favourite finished with four fours in his 22, but those scores were plasters over the wound that the national cricketer Barnwell delivered to the visitors as they succumbed for 94 in 30.1 overs.Carlton Jacques supported Barnwell with 2-12 from 7.1 overs.  In the middle, DCC lost their openers early, but national cricketer Tevin Imlach blasted his way to 73 (8×4, 1×6). Although his innings was of a high quality, Barnwell’s took over the spotlight as he spanked 11 fours and 10 huge sixes in a top score of 134.The middle-order batsman looked like he would have batted out the day, but he succumbed to Persaud. He had belted the off spinner for a six off his first ball over the deep mid-wicket region and was attempting a similar shot the very next, but was caught.UG bounced back by picking up the last four wickets for 29 runs, but they were still trailing the home team by 207. The match is set to continue this morning at the Queenstown venue.last_img read more

Anime Wig Cosplay Lolita Cute Cat Ears Hairpin Hair Accessories, I think these ears are a perfect size. I have brown hair

first_imgLove these so a great deal ideal fr any cosplay. Bought two so me and my lover could twin cats with each other. They have been so cute and just best with wigs and usual hair. Have a slight tendancy to flop ahead but practically nothing a hair pin can’t take care of.Super cute neko ears which i put on generally.My daughter wore these for a social gathering seemed fantastic.Key specs for Anime Wig Cosplay Lolita Cute Cat Ears Hairpin Hair Accessories:New and high qualityCat Ears HairpinPlushColor as shown in pictureCosplay Lolita Hair AccessoriesComments from buyers“The two ears had manufacturing differences — so they weren’t , I think these cat ears are just so adorable and ideal for costumes and cosplay, its okay but when you get them they are way , Sweet little ears, There Cute and awesome!, I think these ears are a perfect size. I have brown hair”Really difficult to have on as they turn out to be unfastened but good ears.Get a slim head band though so stays on better would be my tips xx.Excellent for my wolf costume. I do need further clips to preserve the ears in my hair.Sweet little ears that rotate on a steel headband (silver coloured) which is fantastic sufficient to be missing in your hair. You can posture them at distinct angles and your head keeps them in location. Rigid sufficient to stand upright but soft great good quality material and that body fat anime appear. Lesser than they look in the photo but not ridiculously compact for an grownup/teen. Entirely good order for modest cost.Actually pleasant high quality, very soft. A minimal more substantial than i imagined they had been likely to be even though.The two ears experienced producing differences — so they were not. The two ears had production variances — so they were not accurately the exact which created it challenging when making an attempt to get them to glance symmetrical. Moreover the clips at the base are not very long ample so its tricky to get them to sit flat without the need of ever so marginally hanging off your head. Therefore, you may perhaps want to buy some more substantial clips oneself and cut the types on the base off and replace them with a hot glue gun. Ears are nevertheless cute even though and arrived in a decent time frame. I purchased them for halloween but never assume i’d use them once more.They arrived really early too ^-^.They are the excellent addition to my halloween costume(scheduling early this calendar year) they have pretty a sturdy grip way too.More compact than envisioned and very fiddly to nput on,, would not endorse.Not as darkish grey as they look in the photo.They search excellent on and stay in location really nicely. They appear great on and continue to be in position really well.These were being great for my daughter to gown up as a cat.I believe these cat ears are just so cute and ideal for costumes and cosplay. I feel these cat ears are just so adorable and perfect for costumes and cosplay. The only problem i have with them is that it can be not advisable on small, boyish hair, as a single of the pair has virtually slipped off due to my hair becoming brushed to just one aspect, so just a heads up.They’re excellent for extravagant gown even so how clip was experiencing the improper way which intended they fell out simpler.I consider these ears are a great measurement. I consider these ears are a fantastic dimension. I have brown hair, so acquired the brown ears with the pink insides and i believe they seem amazing.It did acquire a little experimentation with placement and hairstyles to get them in the most ‘natural looking’ place. They are smooth and smooth, arrived extremely quickly and are very perfectly made. They attach with extensive press-clips (i don’t know what the appropriate title for them is).They glance particularly as they are in the picture. They are tremendous fluffy and comfy. They are a little loose with just the hair clip that is on the ears so you do have to use a bobby pin to protected it far better so it does not go that a great deal but it really is not a substantial concern.Its all right but when you get them they are way. Its okay but when you get them they are way to unfastened for the to stay on your head even with the clips i experienced to attach them to a hairband to make them additional secure but even so i wouldnt actually obtain them.Definitely great but a little bit flimsy i would suggest clipping them to a headband so they never move about much too a great deal, otherwise terrific.These are so cute and sense truly good and don’t transfer around far too a lot.The fur is pretty soft and it matches my head flawlessly. It arrived prior to comic con far too.Really like them and arrived tremendous swift .last_img read more

Reminiscing about the good ol’ days

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest You may have noticed that I’ve written about serious stuff the past few months. Well, I never could stand being all serious, all the time, so this month my social conscience about food will take a summer break and I’ll take you on a trip down memory lane.A scientific article about non-caged, free-range, organic eggs recently set me reminiscing about my mother. She raised 300 free-range layers and sold eggs from our back door. Her chickens had abundant room to move about and find a nest when they had an urge to lay an egg. Though free-range, they returned each night to a chicken house, for protection from varmints.However, for several nights a couple of the hens chose not to return to their safe house. They hid in the haymow above the heifer loafing pens. Eventually, my brothers came across the nests in the wayward hens’ hideaway. They contained a couple dozen eggs.Even way back then my brothers and I were concerned about food safety. We figured that since there was no rooster to fertilize the eggs, and we had no idea how long the eggs had been sitting there, the eggs should be pitched.And pitch them we did — at each other, like snowballs with great accuracy. I told Dad that I inadvertently slipped and fell into a hen’s nest full of eggs while feeding the cows hay. Of course, that didn’t explain the egg yolks smeared on the barn door, nor the egg shells in the feed bunk, nor my brothers’ egg-stained clothes.In reflection, I’m sure he didn’t buy the story. But he didn’t challenge us. Dads’ boys were indeed boys.Then there were the escapades with my cousins Lee and Dale. They were a couple years older than I and lived just three quarters of a mile, as the crow flies, from our house. Since I didn’t have a driver’s license, I caught a ride with them to summer 4-H meetings. After the 4-H meetings, Lee and Dale, along with a couple of other neighborhood boys, raided watermelon patches.Now, of course, I wasn’t into doing that kind of thing. Dad would have skinned me alive. But since Lee and Dale had given me a ride to the 4-H meeting, what could I do?Usually the 4-H meeting ended about 9:30, shortly after darkness descended and the moon came up high in the sky. Lee and Dale scouted out the targeted patches ahead of time, to check the lay of the land and prevent driving off into a creek or ditch in the dark. And to avoid detection, they disconnected the taillights of their family’s 1953 Ford, and they flipped off the headlights. My cousins were like a couple of raccoons eating sweetcorn. They smashed a melon then took only a few bites before moving on to the next. However, if cross-examined, I would have had to confess that nothing tasted sweeter than a watermelon cracked open by moonlight down a long, narrow farm lane even if it wasn’t organic!And here — never before divulged — are the details of the cover up. After leaving by driving slowly back down the farm lane, still with no headlights or taillights, we turned onto the township road and drove a mile or so before switching on the headlights and reconnecting the taillights. Also at this point we discarded any contraband from the vehicle, eliminating evidence that we had done anything other than go to a 4-H meeting.Then one final stop before home — we pulled into the local hangout, Hunter’s restaurant/gas station, for chocolate malts. However, the chocolate malts, and being seen at Hunter’s, were not the key elements of my cousins’ cover up plot. You see, Lee and Dale’s dad was suspicious of them. He had taken to checking the mileage on the family car after they borrowed it.So, they jacked up one rear wheel and put the car in reverse. As we sipped our malts, the extra miles put on during our melon patch raid rolled off the odometer. In those days, odometers were gear-driven rather than electronic, and ’53 Fords didn’t have posi-traction or automatic transmissions. So you could turn the odometer back with the car in reverse.What can I say? But I’ll give my cousins credit: Their scheme was far safer than driving the car in reverse the long way home to erase all the extra miles we had veered off the straight and narrow.last_img read more

UST, UP dealt with huge blow as imports Akomo, Ouattara ruled ineligible for UAAP Season 80

first_imgSaguisag believes that the UAAP Board will come up with a final decision before the start of the tournament on Saturday.“There are points raised and both schools have already elevated the matter to the Board of Trustees, and they will decide on the issue. We’ll just have to wait and see until September 9,” he said. “I hope the matter should be addressed, and it will be addressed. We’ll have a decision soon hopefully, before the opening. For now, it is what it is.” Christian Standhardinger enters 2017 PBA Draft View comments Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH LOOK: Venues for 2019 SEA Games Read Next Chief Justice Peralta on upcoming UAAP game: UP has no match against UST PLAY LIST 01:00Chief Justice Peralta on upcoming UAAP game: UP has no match against UST02:46Makabayan bloc: Duterte suspension order on rice importation only a ‘media stunt’00:50Trending Articles01:37Protesters burn down Iran consulate in Najaf01:47Panelo casts doubts on Robredo’s drug war ‘discoveries’01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games University of the Philippines and University of Santo Tomas will likely miss a key cog in their respective UAAP Season 80 campaigns.The UAAP eligibility committee ruled Ibrahim Ouattara and Rob Ricafort of the Fighting Maroons, as well as Steve Akomo of the Growling Tigers ineligible this year after failing to meet the required years of residency.ADVERTISEMENT “It’s going to be a huge blow for us if we lose those two,” lamented coach Bo Perasol, as he expects Ouattara and Ricafort to figure on his starting lineup. “I have been preparing the team for more than a year with those two in the fold. And it’s going to greatly affect the team’s competitiveness if they will be deemed ineligible.”UP College of Human Kinetics Dean Ronualdo Dizer also expressed confidence that the decision will be overturned and the Board will allow Ouattara and Ricafort to play this season.“On the UP side, we are very optimistic on this because this has been amended during the time that we were hosting,” he said.The same goes with UST as coach Boy Sablan expects a favorable decision in the coming days.“I’m still very positive that our appeal will be approved. If we’ll follow the rules, that’s very clear there. I don’t know what’s the problem with the Board,” he said.ADVERTISEMENT Kammuri turning to super typhoon less likely but possible — Pagasa MOST READcenter_img SEA Games in Calabarzon safe, secure – Solcom chief Catriona Gray spends Thanksgiving by preparing meals for people with illnesses “The eligibility committee has already made its initial findings and it was affirmed by the Board of managing directors. So unless its reversed, overturned, or vetoed by the Board of Trustees composed of the presidents, the findings of the ineligibility on those players will officially stand,” said new UAAP executive director Rebo Saguisag.The Mali-born Ouattara and the Cameroonian Akomo were set to fortify the frontline for their respective teams, but were deemed ineligible after failing to meet the two-year residency requirement for foreign players.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSSEA Games: Philippines picks up 1st win in men’s water poloSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutThe Fil-Am Ricafort, meanwhile, is deemed by the committee to have exceeded the age limit even if he won’t turn 25 until January of next year. The age limit set by the league is 25.But the two schools are not giving their players up without a fight as they already submitted separate appeals to the UAAP Board of Trustees. LATEST STORIES For the complete collegiate sports coverage including scores, schedules and stories, visit Inquirer Varsity. WATCH: Streetboys show off slick dance moves in Vhong Navarro’s wedding Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. UPLB exempted from SEA Games class suspensionlast_img read more

PSEB 10th Class result declared

first_imgThe PSEB 10th Class results have been announced by the Punjab School Education Board on Tuesday. The results of the 10th class matric 1st semester and 2nd semester examination are at its official website www.results.pseb.ac.in.Of the PSEB matric result 2011 announced yesterday, Amolpreet Kaur of Bhai Nand Lal Public Senior Secondary School in Anandpur Sahib (Ropar) topped it, scoring 96.46 per cent.Gaganjot Kaur of Ambala Jattan village in Hoshiarpur stood second and Ramandeep Kaur of Moga and Chitranjali Joshi of Samana shared the third slot.PSEB chairman Dalbir Singh Dhillon said 2,27,000 candidates of the total 3,52,948 students passed the exam. But this year’s pass percentage is almost 14 per cent less than last year, he said.Dhillon added that the lower pass percentage were due to stricter norms this year, since any student who didn’t clear the compulsory subjects — English, Hindi, Punjabi, Mathematics and Science — were declared failed.The Punjab School Education Board was established in 1969 and is based out of Mohali.For more news on India, click here.For more news on Business, click here.For more news on Movies, click here.For more news on Sports, click here.last_img read more

Giannis Antetokounmpo scores 38, but is denied MVP in defeat

first_imgCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA – FEBRUARY 17: Giannis Antetokounmpo #34 of the Milwaukee Bucks and Team Giannis reacts against Team LeBron in the first quarter during the NBA All-Star game as part of the 2019 NBA All-Star Weekend at Spectrum Center on February 17, 2019 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Streeter Lecka/Getty Images/AFPCHARLOTTE, N.C. — Midway through the third quarter, Giannis Antetokounmpo said he began thinking he had a chance to become the first international player to win the NBA All-Star Game MVP.But the thought was fleeting, as Team LeBron mounted a rally and came from behind to defeat Team Giannis 178-164 on Sunday night. While Antetokounmpo finished with 38 points and 10 rebounds, Kevin Durant won the award.ADVERTISEMENT “We didn’t win and that’s why I didn’t get it,” the Milwaukee Bucks star said.He had taken some advice before the game about how to approach things from his brother, Thanasis Antetokounmpo, who has won the last two MVP awards in the Greek League.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine ‍football chiefSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption charges Curry called it a play that nobody else in the gym could have made.“His length, finishing it, and getting it before it came down. Pretty bang-bang play,” Curry said. “Just glad we had that connection. I’m not sure anybody else on the floor could have finished that one. So for it to be choreographed like that was pretty nice.”Antetokounmpo just smiled after the play, maybe even stunned by his own athleticism.“I’m going to keep getting better,” Antetokounmpo said. “Hopefully, I can get as many MVPs as my brother has.”Durant doesn’t doubt that will happen.ADVERTISEMENT Urgent reply from Philippine ‍football chief ‘We are too hospitable,’ says Sotto amid SEA Games woes LATEST STORIES US judge bars Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants Grace Poe files bill to protect govt teachers from malicious accusations Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles02:29Giannis Antetokounmpo powers Bucks in bounce back win over Celtics02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss MOST READcenter_img He said the 23-year-old Antetokounmpo has “potential through the roof.”“It is scary to see how far he can keep going,” Durant said of the 6-foot-11 Antetokounmpo. “His game is still rounding into shape and he is still getting better. But he’s in the elite top three of the MVP candidates (at 24). So, to be that young and already at the top of the class as one of the elites in the game, it is a joy to watch his progression.”Antetokounmpo lived up to his billing as the best player in the Eastern Conference now that LeBron James has moved to the Los Angeles Lakers.But, he said the fact that he was the team captain isn’t going to his head.“It’s easy as long as you stay humble and down to earth,” Antetokounmpo said of handling his role as the All-Star Game team leader on Sunday night. “It’s easy. I think just being a leader of the team, it wasn’t as tough as I thought because my teammates, the guys in the locker room encouraged me to step up and take it serious and play hard and help the team to win. So that was kind of easy tonight.” Oil plant explodes in Pampanga town View comments Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting Jolina dela Cruz has impressive UAAP debut in starting role for La Salle SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte PDEA chief backs Robredo in revealing ‘discoveries’ on drug war Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. He came out aggressive.Antetokounmpo started the game with a dunk fest — five of them in the first quarter alone and finished with eight for the game. One dunk was a thing of beauty as he took a bounce pass from two-time league MVP Stephen Curry that sailed over the rim and dunked it.last_img read more

Ohio State’s Thad Matta Was Pretty Unhappy With The Referees Following His Team’s Loss To Michigan State Last Night

first_imgThad Matta yells at a referee.Thad Matta did a lot of screaming during his team’s game against Michigan State Friday night. Plenty that yelling was directed at his players, who performed quite poorly in a 76-67 loss to the Spartans in the Big Ten Tournament quarterfinal round. But a lot of it was aimed at the officials. Matta, 47, has been coaching in the conference since 2004. He, in a roundabout way, called the officiating during last night’s game the worst he’s ever seen. Matta on the officiating: “I’ve been in this league 11 years and that was amazing.”— Kevin Trahan (@k_trahan) March 14, 2015Matta was mostly unhappy with the amount of physicality the Spartans were getting away with. He believed his players were getting bumped on cuts, hand checked when dribbling and bodied when driving into the lane. Matta says this was one of the most physical games he’s ever seen. My interpretation: “We got hacked to death.”— Jerod Smalley (@JerodNBC4) March 14, 2015To be fair to the refs, there was an even distribution when it comes to the amount of fouls that were called – 20 on Michigan State and 18 on Ohio State. With the win, the Spartans moved on to the semifinal round, where they’ll face No. 2 seed Maryland. The Buckeyes, meanwhile, will find out their NCAA Tournament fate Sunday night. Most projections have Matta’s team seeded on the No. 8/No. 9 line.last_img read more

Columbus Crew return to Ohio State to honor Connor Senn

For players participating in Tuesday’s Connor Senn Memorial soccer game between the Ohio State men’s soccer team and the Columbus Crew, the event is more than an exhibition match. The charity event, which honors former OSU soccer player Connor Senn who collapsed on the field of play and died hours later, transcends sport, said Columbus Crew coach Robert Warzycha. On Sept. 26, 2001, Senn, a then-18-year-old freshman, collapsed on the field during a game at Akron. The cause of death was determined to be a congenital heart defect that, at the time, went undetected. “I would call (Senn) more of a family member,” Warzycha said. “He was a soccer player, we all play soccer. It’s very important for us to be at this game. This is something that we all remember and it raises awareness of what happened on the field and raises money for the cause.” The charity match was established in 2002 and will be back Tuesday for the 11th time. The event raises awareness for sudden cardiac arrest in athletes with proceeds benefiting the Connor Senn Memorial Fund and the Dorothy M. Davis Heart & Lung Research Institute at OSU’s Wexner Medical Center, according to ohiostatebuckeyes.com. For the first nine years of the game, OSU took on the Crew. Last year, though, the Crew elected not to play in the charity match. Crew technical director Brian Bliss told The Lantern in May 2011 that playing in the Connor Senn Memorial Match would cost the club $10,000 because of the Major League Soccer Players Union’s most recently ratified collective-bargaining agreement, which stipulates that MLS clubs can schedule only one non-league “free game” per season. The Crew had already scheduled an international friendly against Premier League’s Newcastle United to be played on July 26, so OSU instead hosted the Dayton Dutch Lions of the United Soccer Leagues. The Buckeyes lost to the Dutch Lions, 3-1, May 2. This year, the Crew returns to take on the Buckeyes and OSU coach John Bluem said having them back is an important factor for both teams. “It’s neat. It’s the pro team in town playing against Ohio State University men’s Division I team,” Bluem said. “The Crew really add that little bit of extra juice to it.” Bluem said he’s looking for his team to go out and show that they can keep up with the pros. He also said he would like to have the opportunity to play everyone on the team, but the bench might see limited action in this contest. “We want to show that we’re a good team. We’re going to put out there who we think is the best group and play them for as much of the game as possible,” Bluem said. “Hopefully we can go about 70 to 75 minutes and it’s a good game and it’s close.” Former OSU and current Crew goalkeeper Matt Lampson previously played in the game as a Buckeye from 2008-2011 and said he’s not going to take the game lightly. “I’m excited about it and I’m going to be honest, I want to make it not close … You would think that I would have some sort of compassion for my alma mater, but unfortunately,” Lampson said, pausing while a grin spread across his face, “it’s not there. This is my job now and I gotta go out and do it.” Lampson said when he wore scarlet and gray, OSU often went into the match hoping to make it close but quickly realized they would be outplayed by the pros. He said he’s expecting this year’s match to play out in similar fashion. “When I played with OSU, they would say things like, ‘All right we’re going to go out and play against these guys,’” Lampson said. “And we would try for about five minutes and then we were like, ‘Well, they’re way better. Lets hang back a little bit.’ That’s what I’m expecting, for them to hang back and not attack so much.” Warzycha said he plans on starting players that don’t normally crack the Crew’s starting lineup, but added that everyone on the Crew could have a chance to play. “We’ll see how the game goes and everybody is going to be on the bench, so if we need to use somebody, then they’ll go in and play,” Warzycha said. Regardless of the outcome, Bluem said he is proud of what the game has become, grateful the Crew have agreed to be a part of it and said there is a lesson that can be learned from all of it. “Life is precious. Sudden cardiac death is a scary thing that can happen in athletics and in general walks of life. The Columbus Crew have been unbelievable as a partner for the last 11 years,” he said. “Our goal now is through research and education, which we can now fund, to prevent sudden cardiac death.” Tuesday’s game kicks off at 7 p.m. at Jesse Owens Memorial Stadium. Tickets are $5 for adults and $3 for children and students and can be purchased online at OhioStateBuckeyes.com or by calling 1-800-GO-BUCKS. Pat Brennan contributed to this article. read more