CHENNAI: Holding that a thief is not entitled to legitimately robbing a dacoit, the Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the orders of a lower court convicting former Congress MP A Anbarasu and another in a cheque bounce case and sentencing them to two years’ imprisonment.
When the criminal revision petitions from Anbarasu and P Mani of Rajiv Gandhi Memorial and Educational Charitable Trust came up last week, their senior counsel told Justice P N Prakash that the late financier S Mukanchand Bothra, who had allegedly lent Rs 35 lakh to the accused in 2002, had not produced his income tax returns to show that the amount was given as loan to the Trust and had not paid tax for it. Hence, the contract (promissory notes) entered into between the lender and the borrower itself is void. He also cited Sec. 23 of the Contract Act to support his claim.
Rejecting the contention, the judge pointed out that it was the accused, who selectively filed an application under Sec. 91 of the CrPC, for production of the income tax returns of Bothra and his sons, leaving out the income tax returns of the other family members. In this connection, Gagan Bothra, one of the sons, had clearly explained that the other members of their family had pooled in their resources to mobilise Rs 35 lakh.
When a person wants loan from another, he is not required to investigate into the means by which his creditor has amassed wealth. If the accused in these cases had wanted to be puritans, they should have told Mukanchand at the threshold itself that being puritans, they would obtain loan only from a person who is also a puritan and who has disclosed all his earnings to the Income Tax Department, the judge said.
“In the opinion of this court, after having obtained a loan, it does not behove of the debtor to repudiate it on the ground that the creditor had earned the money through illegal means. In other words, after having borrowed from a compassionate harlot, can the borrower deny repayment of loan on the ground that she had earned the money immorally and illegally?
The answer to this question can only be an emphatic “No” and nothing else. In short, a thief is not entitled to legitimately robbing a dacoit,” the judge said and dismissed the petitions and confirmed the orders of the lower courts passed in 2015 and 2017. Anbarasu issued two cheques in 2002, which were bounced when submitted for realisation.