Corporate Victimhood and the Right to Appeal under Section 372 CrPC
Introduction:The case of Asian Paints Limited Vs Ram Babu & Anr., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 14 July 2025, examined the scope of the right of a “victim” under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). At the heart of the matter was whether a corporate entity, as the holder of intellectual property rights harmed by counterfeiting, could maintain an appeal against an acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court, and whether such appeal was procedurally permissible in light of Section 378 CrPC. The decision offers clarity on the victim’s statutory right to appeal and harmonizes earlier judicial interpretations, reaffirming the participatory rights of victims in criminal proceedings.
Factual Background:Asian Paints Limited, a public limited company and a well-known manufacturer of paint products, discovered counterfeit products being sold under its brand at Ganpati Traders, a shop owned by Ram Babu in Rajasthan. Acting through its authorized IPR consultancy firm, M/s Solution, and its field investigator, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, the company initiated a complaint with the police on 6 February 2016. A raid led to the seizure of twelve buckets of allegedly counterfeit paint, bearing marks similar to those of Asian Paints but lacking the company's distinctive bottom mark. To verify authenticity, the complainant provided two buckets of genuine Asian Paints products for comparison.
Procedural Background:An FIR bearing No.30/2016 was registered under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The matter was investigated, and a chargesheet was filed against Ram Babu.
The Trial Court, by order dated 3 October 2019, convicted him under the aforementioned provisions, sentencing him to terms of imprisonment ranging from one to three years, along with fines. Ram Babu challenged the conviction before the First Appellate Court, which on 16 February 2022 acquitted him of all charges. Aggrieved, Asian Paints Limited filed S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2354/2022 before the High Court of Rajasthan under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the company lacked locus standi as a “victim,” observing that only the complainant or the State could maintain such an appeal. The company then approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9888 of 2024.
Core Dispute:The dispute before the Supreme Court was whether Asian Paints Limited, as the aggrieved intellectual property right holder, qualified as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and thus could invoke the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against the order of acquittal by the First Appellate Court. The case further raised whether such an appeal was procedurally barred under Section 378 CrPC, which traditionally governs appeals against acquittals and requires leave of the High Court.
Discussion on Judgments :The appellant relied on Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321, where the Supreme Court clarified that a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC includes persons who have suffered loss or injury due to the crime, and that being the complainant is not a prerequisite to claim victim status. This case was cited to assert that Asian Paints, as the party directly harmed by counterfeiting, qualified as a victim irrespective of whether the formal complaint was filed by its investigator.
Further reliance was placed on Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, where the Court interpreted the proviso to Section 372 CrPC liberally, holding that victims have an unqualified right to appeal against acquittals and that this right is independent of other provisions of the CrPC.
The appellant also cited Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184, where the Supreme Court reiterated that the proviso to Section 372 creates an independent and substantive right for victims to prefer appeals against acquittals, convictions for lesser offences, or inadequate compensation, and that this right is not curtailed by other sections, including Section 378 CrPC.
In contrast, the respondent relied on the language of Section 378 CrPC to argue that appeals against appellate acquittals require State intervention and the leave of the High Court, contending that the appeal by Asian Paints was thus procedurally impermissible.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The Supreme Court, speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, examined the statutory text of Sections 2(wa), 372, and 378 CrPC. The Court found that Asian Paints suffered direct reputational and financial injury from the counterfeiting, and that its role was more than that of a mere informant; it was the right holder whose intellectual property had been infringed. This brought the company within the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was introduced as a standalone, substantive right, meant to enhance victims' access to justice. Citing Jagjeet Singh and Mallikarjun Kodagali, the Court rejected the view that the right was limited to complainants or to appeals against trial court acquittals only. It held that the right extends to challenging an acquittal by the First Appellate Court, and such an appeal would lie to the next higher forum in the judicial hierarchy, namely the High Court.
Importantly, the Court observed that the High Court had wrongly interpreted the company’s lack of formal status as complainant to exclude it from victim status and had also erred in treating the proviso to Section 372 as being limited by Section 378. The Court reaffirmed that the proviso operates independently, giving victims the right to appeal without the constraints of Section 378, which applies to State appeals and private complainant appeals in complaint cases.
Final Decision:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, and held that the appeal filed by Asian Paints Limited under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was maintainable. It restored the appeal to the file of the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits and directed the High Court to expedite the matter. The Court clarified that it had only addressed the question of law and left all factual defences open for determination.
Law Settled in This Case:The decision settles that a company harmed by offences like counterfeiting is a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, even against an acquittal by the First Appellate Court. It affirms that the victim’s right of appeal is independent and standalone, and is not limited by the provisions of Section 378 CrPC. The judgment advances a liberal and purposive interpretation to protect victims’ participatory rights in criminal proceedings involving harm to property and reputation.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited Vs. Ram Babu
Date of Order: 14 July 2025
Case Number:SLP (Crl.) No.9888 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 828
Name of Court: Supreme Court of India
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
