1.FACTS
Famous paint manufacturer Asian Paints Limited, which has been in business for roughly 73 years, found that fake paint products that closely resembled its packaging and bore its trademark were being sold in the market. Through a Power of Attorney, the business designated M/s Solution, an intellectual property rights (IPR) consulting firm, to keep an eye on and take action against counterfeiters violating its copyrights and trademarks in order to fight this.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, an authorized investigator working for M/s Solution, visited Ram Babu’s (the first respondent) store in Rajasthan called Ganpati Traders on February 6, 2016. Twelve buckets of paint products that were supposed to be Asian Paints but did not have the characteristic bottom mark that genuine goods normally have were discovered by him. Among these were four buckets of Ace Emulsion Paint (20 liters) and four buckets of Tractor Emulsion Paint (10 liters each). The cops received the written information from the investigator and went with him to examine and confiscate these fake goods. Ram Babu was taken into custody at the store.
In accordance with Sections 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, Ram Babu was the subject of First Information Report (FIR) No. 30/2016. The Investigating Officer filed a final report against Ram Babu for these charges at the investigation’s conclusion. The confiscated goods were verified to be fake by the State Forensic Science Laboratory.
Ram Babu was found guilty at trial and given a sentence of three years in simple jail in addition to penalties. On appeal, nevertheless, the First Appellate Court cleared him due to insufficient evidence. Using the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, Asian Paints Limited filed an appeal in the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that its position as a “victim” gave it the right to do so. Asian Paints lacked the locus standi to appeal since it was not the complainant or acknowledged as a victim by the trial court, according to the High Court, which denied this appeal.
In summary ‘The renowned paint maker Asian Paints Limited found fake paint products with marks that resembled its own being sold at Ganpati Traders, a store owned by Ram Babu in Rajasthan. An investigator was sent by Asian Paints’ IPR consulting firm to keep an eye on and look into any unauthorized usage of its intellectual property rights. Twelve buckets of purportedly fake paint were taken from Ram Babu’s store during a police raid in February 2016 in response to the investigator’s report. Following the investigation, a formal complaint was filed under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC’.
The Supreme Court of India then heard a challenge to this ruling, with the main legal question being whether Asian Paints, a corporate body, could be deemed a “victim” under the Code of Criminal Procedure and so had the ability to appeal against acquittal.
2.ISSUES RAISED
Asian Paints Limited vs. Ram Babu (2025 INSC 828) is a case that mainly concerns the legal question of whether Asian Paints Limited, a corporate entity, is entitled to appeal against Ram Babu’s acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC because it is a “victim” under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The problems mentioned specifically include:
- Under Section 2(WA) of the CrPC, can a business organization that loses money and damages its reputation due to the selling of fake goods bearing its trademarks be considered a “victim”?
- Is it possible for a corporate victim to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, even if the corporation itself did not make the initial complaint but an investigator did so on its behalf?
- the connection and interpretation of Sections 372 and 378 of the CrPC, especially if the victim’s ability to appeal under Section 372 is restricted by the procedural requirements in Section 378.
- If lower courts erred in denying corporate victims the ability to appeal to the State or the original complainant, thus denying them this right.
- whether procedural formality should take precedence over substantive justice in criminal proceedings involving intellectual property rights, counterfeiting, and economic offences, as well as the extent and purpose of statutory protections safeguarding victims.
- All things considered, the primary legal question concerned the meaning and extent of “victim” under the CrPC in relation to corporate organization’s in matters involving intellectual property infringement, as well as the ensuing entitlement to criminal appeal remedies for such victims.
3. CONTENTIONS
- claimed that because of the financial loss and harm to its intellectual property rights (trademarks and copyrights) caused by Ram Babu’s counterfeiting activities, it qualified as a “victim” under Section 2(WA) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- claimed it had the unrestricted legal right, as a victim, to challenge Ram Babu’s acquittal under the CrPC’s Section 372 proviso.
- claimed that regardless of who originally filed the police complaint, the company was directly harmed by the offence, and that the High Court erred in rejecting its appeal on the grounds of locus standi.
- The 2008 amendment to Section 372 CrPC was intended to give victims full rights, including the ability to challenge an acquittal; it was emphasized that corporate entities affected by criminal acts should also have access to these rights.
4.RATIONALE
Ram Babu sold fake goods under Asian Paints’ brand, causing the paint manufacturer to lose money and damage its reputation. Asian Paints was acknowledged by the Supreme Court as the actual victim, even though the initial complaint was brought by an investigator. The court clarified that “victim” refers to any entity that has been harmed or lost something. The Court determined that, as a corporate victim, Asian Paints is not limited by Section 378 CrPC in its ability to appeal acquittals under Section 372 CrPC. Asian Paints’ right to appeal Ram Babu’s acquittal for direct harm suffered is upheld by this ruling, which gives corporate victims the ability to engage in criminal justice, particularly in IPR cases.
Unspoken in the ruling was an attempt to bring criminal law into line with contemporary economic crimes, especially those involving intellectual property. The Court defended brand owners’ rights and reinforced anti-counterfeiting enforcement measures by acknowledging a corporate entity as a victim with the right to appeal.
The overall rationale was to prevent a miscarriage of justice that would occur if a corporate entity, demonstrably harmed by a crime, was denied the right to challenge an acquittal solely on technical grounds related to its identity as a “complainant” versus a “victim” in the initial stages of the case
5.DEFECTS OF LAW
The lower court’s interpretation was limited and mechanical: The Rajasthan High Court ruled that Asian Paints, despite being the corporate entity that was wronged, could not be regarded as a “victim” for the purposes of appealing since it was not the initial complainant. The definition of “victim” under Section 2(WA) of the CrPC, which encompasses any individual or entity experiencing loss or harm as a result of the offense, was disregarded in this interpretation.
Section 372 vs. 378 CrPC Conflict: The High Court incorrectly denied the victim’s right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 (which was added by amendment to give victims an independent right to appeal against acquittal without government permission) by applying the previous procedural rule under Section 378 (state permission required for appeal). The goal of the legislation was to improve victim rights, but this went against that.
Lack of clarity regarding locus standi: The legal framework was incorrectly interpreted to limit the right to appeal to the state or the original complainant alone, ignoring the direct harm experienced by third parties, including corporate victims whose business interests or intellectual property are impacted.
Restricted acknowledgement of corporate victims: Before this ruling, there was uncertainty and little judicial acceptance that businesses damaged by crimes such as fake goods are “victims” under criminal law provisions. As a result, there were obstacles to pursuing redress through criminal appeals.
6.INFERENCE
- Criminal law recognizes businesses as victims when they suffer monetary losses and harm to their reputation as a result of offenses like trademark counterfeiting.
- Under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, such corporate victims have the sole and unrestricted right to appeal acquittals without needing the state’s consent, as stipulated in Section 378.
- The Court’s decision makes it possible for harmed entities to actively participate in criminal proceedings and seek remedies, strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
- This case resolves procedural gray areas and eliminates obstacles that previously prevented businesses from filing criminal appeals just because they weren’t the initial complainant.
- It is probable that this decision would incentivize more corporate companies to participate in criminal procedures and contest acquittals, resulting in a rise in appeals in instances in which they are the impacted party. It also indicates that companies should be alert to illegal activity that might impact their operations and be ready to defend their victims’ rights.
- Beyond intellectual property rights, this case has established a precedent. Any business that experiences direct harm or loss as a result of an economic offence (such as fraud, embezzlement, or sabotage) can now exercise its right to appeal an acquittal, which might increase responsibility for such crimes.
- The Supreme Court’s position makes it evident that strict, formalistic interpretations of criminal process that can obstruct justice are being abandoned. Real injury can be remedied through the appeal process since the Court priorities the victim’s actual suffering, whether it be an individual or a company.
- Businesses fighting trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and other intellectual property crimes now have a strong tool thanks to this ruling. Their rights may now be enforced more directly and proactively as they are no longer dependent only on the State or individual complainants to pursue criminal remedies.