MASALTI versus STATE OF U. P

Citation: [1964] 8 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 04-05-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 22 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

8 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
133 
Val/ace and Co.(') was not intended to, and did not lay 
~ 
Jown that in every case, cancellation of an agency resulted Gillandm A.rb1 
in loss of a source of revenue or that amounts paid to corn-
thnot :nd Co. 
pensate for loss of agency must be regarded as capital loss. 
ciT. 
On a careful consideration of all the circumstances we 
agree with the High Court that cancellation of the comracr 
of agency did not affect the profit-making structure of the 
appellant, nor did it iinvolve a loss of an enduring trading 
asset; it Iljerely deprived the appellant of a trading avenue, 
leaving him free to devote his energies after the cancellation 
to carry on the rest of the business, and to replace the contract 
lost by a similar cpntract. The compensation paid, therefore, 
d.id not represent 'the price paid for loss of a capital asset. 
We therefore dismiss the appeals with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
MASALTI 
v. 
STATE OF U. P. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO. K. c. DAS 
GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ) 
Criminal Appeal-Appeal by special leave-Scope-Murders committed 
by village faction constituting 
unlawful assembly-Sentence of 
death, if and when can be pas.Jed-Apprecilztion of evidence-T11t 
-Validity Prosecution-It must examine all witnesses cited. 
Forty persons 
belonging to a village faction and · constituting an 
unlawful assembly were put up on trial before the Ad'ditional Sessions 
lodge under s. 302 read with s. 149 of the Indiao Penal Code and other 
sections thereof for murdering 5 persons of the other faotion with gun1. 
The trial lodge found 35 of them ~illy and sentenced 10 of them. who 
carried fire arms, to death and the rest to imprisonment for life. Three 
appeals were preferred by the convicted persons to the High Court anll 
!he sentences of death came up for confirmation under s. 374 of the 
(I) L.R. 59 I.A. 206, 
Shllh /. 
lPM 
May,4 
1964 
Masalti 
... 
State of U.P. 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court acquitted 
7 
of the 
appellants and, concurring with the findings of the :rial court, dismissed 
tbe appeals of the rest. It confirmed the sentences of death passed on 
tbe 10 accused persons. The appeals to this Court were preferred by 
thoso 10 and 6 others by special leave. 
HEco:-(i) In criminal appeals under Art. 136 of the Constitution 
involving sentences of death it would be improper to refuse to consider 
relevant pleas of fact or law on the ground that they had not been 
taken before the High Court. When any such point had actueUy been 
urged and not considered by the High Court, the party urging it was 
entitled as a matter of right to obtain a cfecision from this Court. 
Evea 
otllerwise no hard and fast rule can be laid down prohibiting such 
pleas being raisetl in such appeals. 
(ii) It would be unsound to lay down as a general rule that ever}' 
witness clted by the prosecution must be examined by it even though ltis 
evidence was not very material or he was known to have been v1on 
over or terrorised. 
(iii) Evidence of a \\'itness could not be discarded only on the ground 
that Qe was a partisan or intereste1 witness, particularly in cases 
of 
murd~r c:ommitteC by a village faction, such mechanical rejection would 
invariably lea'd to failure of justice. 
(iv) It was not improper for a criminal court having a large num-
ber of C1ffenders and victims to deal with to adopt the test that the 
conviction of any particular accused could be sustained only if a parti-
cular number of witnesses gave a consistent account against him. Such 
a test, even though mechanical, was not unreasonable:. 
(v) Punishment prescribed by s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code was 
in a sense vicarious and that section does not necessarily require that 
the offence must have been actually committed by every member of the 
unlawful. assfmOly. The observations of this Court in Baladin v. State 
of U .P. had to be read in the context of that case and coufd not be 
treated as laying down an unqualified proposition of law. 
Baladin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 181. explained. 
(vi) It was not eorrect to say that if a person was found guilty of 
murder under s. 302/149 of the lntlian Penal Codct and it was not show• 
·that he himself bad committed the muI'der, no sentence of death coulti 
be inflicted on him. 
Dalip Singh v. State of I'1111iab, [1954] S.C.R. 145, distinguished. 
(vii) There was no error in the exercise of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.