In a major blow to former Congress MP R Anbarasu and his wife, the Madras High Court on Wednesday upheld the order of a trial court sentencing them to undergo two years’ imprisonment in an Rs 35 lakh cheque dishonouring case.
Madras High Court
Chennai:
As per the case, Mukuchand Bothra had loaned Rs 35 lakhs in 2006 to Anbarasu, a trustee of Rajiv Gandhi Trust for various development works. But failure to return the money despite signing of promissory notes and a bounced cheque in the process had led to a series of suites and criminal case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Two of the trial courts had made concurrent findings in the case. Challenging this, Anbarasu, his wife and another person filed criminal revision petitions.
Justice Prakash while dismissing the petitions also set aside the contention of Anabarasu’s counsel that Mukanchand has not produced his income tax returns to show that Rs 35 lakhs was given as loan to the Rajiv Gandhi Trust and has not paid tax for it and hence, the contract itself is void.
Holding that the debt is founded on two promissory notes, the judge further noted that Gagan Bothra has clearly explained that the other members of their family have pooled in their resources to mobilise Rs 35 lakhs while the accused had selectively filed an application under Section 91 CrPC for production of the income tax returns of S Mukanchand & Sons, leaving out the income tax returns of the other family members.
“In this connection, when a person wants loan from another, he is not required to investigate into the means by which his creditor had amassed wealth. If the accused in these cases had wanted to be puritans, they should have told Mukanchand at the threshold itself that, they being puritans, will obtain loan only from a person who is also a puritan and who has disclosed all his earnings to the Income Tax Department,” Justice Prakash said while observing that 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 rob a dacoit,” Justice Prakash added.
Holding that this Court has no reasons to hold that Mukanchand Bothra, the financier, has not proved the debt of Rs 35 lakhs, Justice P N Prakash directed the trial court to issue warrant to secure the accused and commit them to prison to undergo the period of sentence.
As per the case, Mukuchand Bothra had loaned Rs 35 lakhs in 2006 to Anbarasu, a trustee of Rajiv Gandhi Trust for various development works. But failure to return the money despite signing of promissory notes and a bounced cheque in the process had led to a series of suites and criminal case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Two of the trial courts had made concurrent findings in the case. Challenging this, Anbarasu, his wife and another person filed criminal revision petitions.
Justice Prakash while dismissing the petitions also set aside the contention of Anabarasu’s counsel that Mukanchand has not produced his income tax returns to show that Rs 35 lakhs was given as loan to the Rajiv Gandhi Trust and has not paid tax for it and hence, the contract itself is void.
Holding that the debt is founded on two promissory notes, the judge further noted that Gagan Bothra has clearly explained that the other members of their family have pooled in their resources to mobilise Rs 35 lakhs while the accused had selectively filed an application under Section 91 CrPC for production of the income tax returns of S Mukanchand & Sons, leaving out the income tax returns of the other family members.
“In this connection, when a person wants loan from another, he is not required to investigate into the means by which his creditor had amassed wealth. If the accused in these cases had wanted to be puritans, they should have told Mukanchand at the threshold itself that, they being puritans, will obtain loan only from a person who is also a puritan and who has disclosed all his earnings to the Income Tax Department,” Justice Prakash said while observing that 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 rob a dacoit,” Justice Prakash added.