Advocates appeared:
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

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Case Title: Asian Paints Limited – Appellant Versus Ram Babu & Another – Respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
• Citation: 2025 Supreme(SC) 1046; 2025 AIR(SC) 3322; 2025 3 BBCJ(SC) 468; 2025 140 CLT 651; 2025 INSC 828; 2025 3 LawHerald(SC) 2216; 2025 10 SCC 372; 2025 7 SCR 573; 2025 KLT(Online) 2387; 2025 KHC(Online) 6584; 2025 6 Supreme 1.
• Decision Date: 14-07-2025.
• Procedural History: The case is a Criminal Appeal No. 2952 of 2025 arising from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9888 of 2024. It challenges the High Court of Rajasthan's dismissal of an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Facts:
  • Asian Paints Limited authorized Mr. Ajay Singh and subsequently Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh to investigate and act against counterfeit products infringing its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). (!) (!) (!)
  • On 06.02.2016, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh reported counterfeit paint buckets at Ganpati Traders (owned by Respondent No.1, Ram Babu) to the Tunga Police Station. (!) (!)
  • The police seized 12 buckets of counterfeit paint and arrested Ram Babu. (!)
  • An FIR was registered under Sections 420/120B of IPC and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act. (!)
  • The Trial Court convicted Ram Babu under the said sections. (!)
  • The First Appellate Court acquitted Ram Babu on 16.02.2022. (!)
  • Asian Paints filed an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC before the High Court, which was dismissed as not maintainable. (!) (!)
• Legal Issue: Whether the Appellant (Asian Paints Limited) falls under the definition of 'victim' in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or if Section 378 of the CrPC prevails. (!) (!)
• Key Legal Principle:
  • The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is a self-contained, independent, and stand-alone section that operates independently of other provisions in the CrPC, including Section 378. (!) (!) (!)
  • A 'victim' as defined in Section 2(wa) includes any person who has suffered loss or injury due to the accused's act, and this definition is not restricted to the complainant or informant. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • The right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 accrues upon acquittal by any court (Trial or First Appellate) and lies to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against conviction. (!) (!) (!)
  • The Appellant is considered a 'victim' because it suffered financial and reputational loss due to the sale of counterfeit products. (!) (!)
  • Previous acquittal by the Trial Court is not a prerequisite for the victim to appeal an acquittal by the First Appellate Court. (!) (!)
• High Court's Error: The High Court erred in holding that the appeal was not maintainable because the Appellant was not the original complainant and because Section 378 of the CrPC restricted appeals in police report cases. (!) (!)
• Precedents Cited:
  • Jagjeet Singh v Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321: Established that a 'victim' need not be the 'complainant' and has unbridled participatory rights. (!) (!) (!)
  • Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752: Held that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a substantive enactment creating a right for victims to appeal, independent of Section 378. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Mahabir v State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184: Confirmed the proviso creates a substantive right for victims to appeal acquittals, lesser convictions, or inadequate compensation. (!)
• Outcome:
  • The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. (!)
  • The Appellant's Appeal (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2354/2022) is held maintainable and restored to its original file. (!)
  • The matter is directed to be allocated to a Single Bench of the High Court for hearing on merits expeditiously. (!)
  • Respondent No.1 is at liberty to raise all defenses on merits. (!)
• Acts Referred:
  • Copyright Act: S.63, S.65.
  • Criminal Procedure Code: S.2(w)(a), S.173, S.372, S.374, S.378, S.378(3), S.378(4), S.397, S.401, S.401(3).
  • Indian Penal Code: S.420, S.11, S.120(b), S.376, S.376(a), S.376(b), S.376(c), S.376(d), S.376(e). (!)