The Supreme Court ruled that a company qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC if it suffers loss or injury due to an offence, entitling it to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court clarified that such appeals are independent of Section 378 CrPC and need not be restricted to cases where the victim is the complainant. The judgment reinforces the expansive interpretation of “victim” to include corporations, ensuring their right to challenge wrongful acquittals in criminal cases involving infringement or fraud.
Facts Of The Case:
Asian Paints Limited, a leading paint manufacturer, discovered counterfeit products being sold under its brand name at a shop owned by Ram Babu in Jaipur. The company had authorized M/s Solution, an IPR consultancy, to investigate such violations. M/s Solution’s representative, Pankaj Kumar Singh, filed a police complaint in 2016 after finding fake Asian Paints products at Ram Babu’s shop. The police seized the counterfeit items and registered an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, along with Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act.The Trial Court convicted Ram Babu in 2019, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines. However, the First Appellate Court acquitted him in 2022. Asian Paints, claiming to be the “victim” of the offence, appealed to the Rajasthan High Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that only the complainant (Pankaj Kumar Singh) or the State could challenge the acquittal, and that Section 378 CrPC (requiring special leave) applied instead. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that Asian Paints, as the affected party, had the right to appeal as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, irrespective of who lodged the complaint.
Procedural History:
The case originated with the filing of FIR No. 30/2016 at Tunga Police Station, Jaipur, under Sections 420/120B IPC and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act against Ram Babu for selling counterfeit Asian Paints products. The Trial Court convicted him in 2019, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines. Ram Babu then appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bassi (First Appellate Court), which acquitted him in February 2022. Asian Paints, claiming to be the victim, filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, challenging the acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal in October 2023, holding that the company lacked standing as it was neither the complainant nor a recognized victim under CrPC provisions. Asian Paints then approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP), which granted leave and ultimately ruled in the company’s favor, clarifying the expansive definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and its independent right to appeal under Section 372. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment. Firstly, it emphasized that the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC is expansive and includes any person (natural or juristic) who suffers loss or injury due to an offense. The Court clarified that Asian Paints, as the entity whose intellectual property rights were infringed, unquestionably qualified as a victim despite not being the direct complainant.The Bench rejected the High Court’s restrictive interpretation, holding that the right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is independent and not subject to the limitations of Section 378 CrPC. It observed that victims need not await the State’s action and can directly challenge acquittals, whether by trial courts or appellate courts. The judgment underscored that this victim-centric provision serves the broader objective of ensuring participatory justice in criminal proceedings. The Court also noted that the First Appellate Court had effectively recognized Asian Paints’ locus by permitting its counsel to assist in arguments during Ram Babu’s appeal. This practical acknowledgment, coupled with the statutory interpretation of “victim,” formed the basis for allowing the company’s appeal against acquittal. The ruling reaffirms that corporate entities suffering harm from crimes have equal standing as victims in criminal jurisprudence.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Asian Paints Limited, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment that had dismissed its appeal against Ram Babu’s acquittal. The Court held that the company was indeed a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, entitling it to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372. The Bench clarified that such appeals by victims are independent statutory rights not constrained by Section 378 CrPC’s requirements. The matter was remanded back to the High Court with directions to hear Asian Paints’ appeal afresh on merits. Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized that the victim’s right to appeal exists regardless of whether the acquittal was by the trial court or appellate court, reinforcing the progressive interpretation of victim rights in India’s criminal justice system. The judgment establishes an important precedent for corporate entities seeking to challenge acquittals in intellectual property and fraud-related cases.
Case Details:
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited vs. Ram Babu & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 828 Criminal Appeal No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9888 of 2024 Date of Judgment: 14th July 2025 Judges/Justices: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Download The Judgement Here