Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra has ruled that an appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is maintainable by a victim even against an acquittal granted by a First Appellate Court. Setting aside a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, the Court directed that the dismissed appeal be restored and heard on merits, holding that the appellant satisfies the statutory definition of “victim” and is entitled to assert appellate rights under the CrPC.

The appeal originated from a criminal complaint regarding the sale of counterfeit paint products allegedly infringing the intellectual property rights of a public limited company, Asian Paints Limited. The company, incorporated and operating in the field of paint manufacturing for over 70 years, had issued a Power of Attorney to one Ajay Singh, proprietor of M/s Solution, an IPR consultancy. The attorney was tasked with identifying violations of the company’s trademarks and copyrights under applicable statutes, including the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957.

Also Read: Fit Case For Furlough Release As Petitioner Has Completed 20 Years Of Uninterrupted Incarceration Without Remission | Supreme Court Orders Three Month Conditional Relief

Ajay Singh subsequently authorised Pankaj Kumar Singh to conduct investigations into potential counterfeit activity. During one such visit to the Tunga locality on 6 February 2016, Singh allegedly discovered paint buckets imitating Asian Paints branding at a shop named Ganpati Traders, operated by Respondent No.1, Ram Babu. Following disclosure of Singh’s identity and supporting documents, local police accompanied him to inspect the premises.

A total of 12 paint buckets bearing marks similar to those used by Asian Paints were found at the shop, including four 20-litre and four 10-litre Ace Emulsion buckets and four 10-litre Tractor Emulsion buckets. The distinguishing mark customarily found on authentic Asian Paints buckets was reportedly missing. The police seized the materials and arrested Ram Babu. For verification, Singh submitted two genuine buckets filled with authentic product for comparison.

Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR No. 30/2016) was registered under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. Upon investigation, a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC was submitted against the respondent for the same offences. A forensic laboratory later confirmed inconsistencies in the counterfeit packaging with respect to size, spacing, and design.

The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 3 October 2019, convicted Ram Babu under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, sentencing him to three years of simple imprisonment under Section 420 IPC, two years under Section 63, and one year under Section 65, along with fines.

Ram Babu challenged the conviction through Criminal Appeal No. 1657/2019 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bassi, Jaipur. On 16 February 2022, the First Appellate Court acquitted him of all charges. Asian Paints, aggrieved by this acquittal, preferred an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2354/2022.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, stating that the appellant was neither the complainant nor the victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC. The court further reasoned that only the complainant of record, Pankaj Kumar Singh, could appeal, and only by first obtaining leave of the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC.

The appellant challenged this dismissal before the Supreme Court.

“Section 2(wa) of the CrPC defines ‘victim’ in plain and simple language as a ‘person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged…’” the Court stated.

In construing the statutory framework, the Bench observed: “The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is a self-contained and independent Section; in other words, it is a stand-alone Section. Section 372 of the CrPC is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX of the CrPC.”

The Court recorded that the appellant had authorised M/s Solution, which in turn authorised Pankaj Kumar Singh, and that these actions were performed on behalf of the appellant. “Whatever action was taken either by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh or by M/s Solution related to the infringement of IPR…was clearly for and on behalf of the Appellant.”

Noting the findings of the High Court, the Supreme Court said: “The observation in the Impugned Judgment that the impleadment application/petition was ‘not allowed’ by the First Appellate Court is erroneous… the order dated 10.02.2022 clearly states that the ‘complainant’ was heard on the appeal.”

The Bench concluded that, “There is no doubt that the Appellant is the ‘victim’ herein. As explained in Jagjeet Singh… it is not necessary for the ‘victim’ to also be the ‘complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case.”

Further clarifying the legal position, the Court stated: “The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is agnostic to the factum of such acquittal being by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court… the right to appeal accrues on the ‘victim’ from the instance of a Court acquitting the accused.”

The Court cited its prior ruling in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, and relied on Mahabir v. State of Haryana, affirming that the legislative intent of the 2009 amendment inserting the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was to confer a meaningful right of appeal on victims.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held: “The Appellant’s Appeal [S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2354/2022] is held maintainable and is restored to its original file and number before the High Court.” The impugned judgment of the High Court was quashed.

The Court directed: “Since the incident in question is of the year 2016, the Registrar (Judicial), Jaipur Bench of the High Court is directed to place the matter before the learned Chief Justice, who in turn, is requested to allocate the same to a learned Single Bench to hear the matter on merits expeditiously, as per the Board position.”

Also Read: Meghalaya High Court Directs Immediate Land Acquisition For Common Burial Grounds | Orders State To Resolve Christian Cemetery Sharing Disputes | Expands PIL Scope To Cover Cremation Needs Of All Faiths

The Registry of the Supreme Court was instructed to transmit a copy of the judgment to the Registrar (Judicial), Jaipur Bench of the High Court “forthwith.”

The Court added: “In this appeal, we have dealt with and decided only the question of law raised. Respondent No.1 will be at complete liberty to raise all defences of fact and law, as may be available, on merits.”

The Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.; Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Thakur Sumit, Adv.; Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR; Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR

Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 828

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2025 [@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9888 of 2024]

Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Keywords: Section 420 IPC, Section 63 Copyright Act, Section 65 Copyright Act, Counterfeit