Scape goats for cheats

One day one Beg a regular client of Mr. Medi involved in scores of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and cheating cases asked Sheel to sign a bunch of papers consisting of reply and vakalatnama etc in deliberate absence of Mr. Medi. He informed Sheel that Mr. Medi had asked Sheel to sign the papers and identify the client before the oath commissioner and submit the papers to the court. Sheel was totally ignorant of the contents and was not given any time to go through it. Such situation of specious urgency is deliberately created.

'Ah the client should not suffer for the fault of the lawyer- then the complaint to bar council against the erring lawyer for cancellation of license --and then show the judge that you have complained the matter to the Council and or police as the case may and the seek retrial and delay the case to tire the opponent into compromise." Sheel said to himself.

Sheel refused.

Un warranted writ

A writ application under section 482 CrPc for quashing of First Information Report filed on behalf of dumper driver involved in crushing of four T.V stars at Lodhi Road was dismissed by the Hoble Delhi High Court as premature and baseless. Mr Medi told the father of the accused that the writ was rejected because of incorrect translation of F.I.R done by Sheel for which the party was supposed to pay Sheel Rs. 150. The client had paid Rs. 25000/- to Mr. Medi a cut of which was supposed to go to a reporter of a Hindi newspaper who had roped in the client and borught it to Mr. Medi. Behind the back of client Mr. Medi would yell before visitors and acquaintances that that the party had'nt paid him a dime. However the father of the accused did not buy Medi's cannard and paid Sheel Rs.150/-and shamed Mr. Medi.

The writ in question was destined to be rejected as it did not fulfilled the criteria laid by the Hon'ble High Court which says that the wrong should be apparent and patently on the face of record, else the first question the High Court raises is that whether charge has been framed by the subordinate court, the subordinate court may discharge the accused if it is merited.