Background:
The Supreme Court in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another addressed an important question regarding whether an entity that suffers loss from an offence, even if not the original complainant, qualifies as a "victim" and can appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"). The Court also considered whether this statutory right of appeal is subject to Section 378 CrPC.
Facts:
Asian Paints Limited, a prominent manufacturer, faced counterfeiting of its products in the market. The company, through a Power of Attorney to M/s Solution, an IPR consultancy, initiated efforts to investigate violations and enforce its intellectual property rights, including trademarks and copyrights. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, authorized by M/s Solution, discovered counterfeit paint buckets at Ganpati Traders, a shop owned by Ram Babu. After informing the police and providing evidence, counterfeit products were seized, and Ram Babu was arrested.
The police filed a First Information Report under appropriate sections relating to cheating and copyright violations. The Trial Court convicted Ram Babu, sentencing him under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. On appeal, the First Appellate Court acquitted the accused. Consequently, Asian Paints Limited appealed against the acquittal before the Rajasthan High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, but the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the company was not a "victim" and the appeal was not maintainable under Section 372 CrPC.
Issue for Consideration:
The Supreme Court examined whether a person or entity suffering loss or injury as a result of an offence, but not being the original complainant, is entitled to maintain an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Held:
The Supreme Court concluded that the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC is broad and inclusive, covering any person or entity who suffers loss or injury due to the offence, not merely the complainant or informant. The Court recognized that Asian Paints Limited, whose intellectual property rights were infringed and who faced both financial and reputational harm, falls squarely within this definition.
The proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a standalone provision granting a substantive right to victims to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. This right is not restricted by Section 378 or other provisions in Chapter XXIX. The proviso empowers victims to challenge an order of acquittal, irrespective of whether such order is passed by a Trial Court or an Appellate Court.
The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's restrictive view, restored the appeal of Asian Paints Limited, and directed the High Court to decide the matter on merits.
MHCO Comment:
This judgment significantly affirms and broadens victim rights in the Indian criminal justice system. The Supreme Court's interpretation clarifies that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC empowers victims—individual or corporate—to appeal against acquittal, even if not the original complainant. This ensures access to appellate remedies for all genuine victims, securing substantive justice and fulfilling the legislative intent of the CrPC amendment. The decision corrects a restrictive approach that could have otherwise denied justice to those directly affected by crimes, especially in cases of corporate harm or intellectual property violations. By upholding the victim's right to appeal, the Court reinforces a more just and inclusive criminal process.
This article was released on 16 July 2025.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
