Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Asian Paints Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ram Babu & Another – Respondents
R1 : Ram Babu
R2: State Of Rajasthan Through P.P., Jaipur
Criminal Appeal No. 2952 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9888 of 2024]
Decided on : 14-07-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 372, Proviso and 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Victim shall have right to prefer appeal against any order passed by Court acquitting accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against order of conviction of such Court – Right to appeal accrues on ‘victim’ from instance of a Court acquitting accused – Proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is agnostic to factum of such acquittal being by Trial Court or First Appellate Court – Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is a self-contained and independent Section – It is a stand-alone Section – Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX of Cr.P.C. – Proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. operates independently of and shall not be read conjointly with any other provision in Cr.P.C., much less Section 378 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 43, 46, 47 and 50)
Facts of the case:
Present Criminal Appeal traces its genesis to impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2023 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2354/2022 rendered by a Single Judge of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, whereby High Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as not maintainable. A neat question of law of significance is raised herein, namely, as to whether Appellant would fall under definition of ‘victim’ in terms of Section 2(wa) read with proviso to Section 372 of CrPC or whether Section 378 of CrPC would prevail in facts and circumstances of present case.
Facts of the case:
Appellant’s Appeal [S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2354/2022] is held maintainable and is restored to its original file and number before High Court. Since incident in question is of year 2016, Registrar (Judicial), Jaipur Bench of High Court is directed to place the matter before Chief Justice, who in turn, is requested to allocate the same to a Single Bench to hear the matter on merits expeditiously, as per Board position.
Result : Appeal allowed
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. I.A. No.151948/2024 seeking exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.
3. The present Criminal Appeal traces its genesis to the impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2023 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2354/2022 [2023:RJ-JP:36178] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the High Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) as not maintainable. A neat question of law of significance is raised herein, namely, as to whether the Appellant would fall under the definition of ‘victim’ in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
FACTUAL SETTING:
4. The Appellant, Asian Paints Limited, a public limited company, has been engaged in the business of manufacturing paint and paint products for approximately the last 73 years. Its Head Office is located in Mumbai, Maharashtra. In the face of counterfeit products being made and sold in the market in its name and style, the Appellant had given a Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PoA’) to one Mr. Ajay Singh, Proprietor, M/s Solution (an IPR consultancy firm) through its authorized representatives, who were tasked with monitoring, tracking down and investigating unauthorised and illegal practices employed in respect of the Appellant’s Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPR’) comprising, inter alia, trademarks and copyrights owned/used by the Appellant. Cases of trademark infringement, passing off etcetera were to be detected, and Mr. Ajay Singh was also asked to undertake survey, investigate and act against any person found to be engaged in violating or infringing the Appellant’s IPR, including but not limited to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Copyright Act’).
5. Subsequently, Mr. Ajay Singh authorized Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh to undertake surveys, inquire, detect and investigate against any and all organisations/individuals for any violation/infringement/passing off or unauthorized/unlawful use of the Appellant’s brand names, trademarks, copyrights, special packing and designs (whether registered in the name of the Appellant and/or being used under license) apropos sub-standard and even counterfeit products, as also to file the necessary complaints against organizations/individuals responsible for the same, with the appropriate enforcement agency, Department, Police, Courts or any special agency for this purpose and to take all necessary action for and on behalf of M/s Solution. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh was also to ensure immediate stoppage of such violation and inform and report to M/s Solution instantly and periodically, the status of such complaints.
6. The complainant-Pankaj Kumar Singh presented written information at the Tunga Police Station to the effect that on 06.02.2016, when he visited Tunga, he saw that counterfeit products, claiming to be of the Appellant, were kept at the shop of Ganpati Traders, which was owned by Respondent No.1. He disclosed his identity to the police and showed other relevant documents. After seeing all the documents, a police team accompanied him to the Ganpati Traders’ shop from the Police Station.
7. The shop was thoroughly checked, wherein 12 buckets purportedly filled with paint bearing a mark similar to that of the Appellant were found. When the police asked the person sitting at the shop for his name and address, he said his name was Rambabu, Respondent No.1 [Rambabu or Ram Babu, as spelt in some records, is the same person]. In all, 4 buckets of Ace Emulsion Paint, each containing 20 litres, and 4 Ace Emulsion 10-litre
Appeal against acquittal – Proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. operates independently of and shall not be read conjointly with any other provision in Cr.P.C., much less Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
(1) Appeal against acquittal – Victim of an offence has right to prefer appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not – Even if victim of an offen....
Victims have the statutory right to appeal acquittals under Section 372 of the CrPC, ensuring access to justice irrespective of complainant status, broadening the definition of 'victim' to encompass ....
Point of Law : It is a settled law that the right to file an appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by condition / conditions of the statute granting it.
The appeal rights of victims and complainants are distinct; complainants must seek special leave under Section 378(4) while victims can appeal under Section 372 under specified conditions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
