The Supreme Court has recognized the Companies/Corporates as a “victim” under the Criminal Laws.
The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held “A victim includes any person, natural or juristic, who suffers harm due to an offence. That includes companies,” the Court held, affirming the wide scope of the term “victim” under the CrPC” the Court held.
It is a landmark decision settling a contentious issue concerning the maintainability of victim’s appeals under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in cases involving Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and enriches the scope beyond.
The Trial Court had convicted the Accused Ram Babu, for the offences of infringement of copyright of Asian Paints Limited. However, in 2022, the First Appellate Court (Sessions Court) reversed the conviction, acquitting the Accused under an appeal Section 374 CrPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, Asian Paints Limited filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court bench at Jaipur under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which permits a “victim” to appeal an acquittal without requiring leave of the court. The High Court dismissed the appeal on maintainability, stating that it was not maintainable since the acquittal arose from a statutory appeal and Asian Paints Limited was neither the original complainant nor impleaded.
The Bench clarified that “victim” and “complainant” are distinct categories in law, and a victim need not be the original complainant to exercise appellate rights under Section 372.
“We may also indicate that the view taken by us that the right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which was inserted vide Section 29 of Act V of 2009, with effect from 31.12.2009, is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC” the Court held.
The Court further held that while Section 378 governs State appeals and requires leave, the proviso to Section 372 creates an independent, substantive right in favour of victims. The High Court’s interpretation, which subordinated this right to Section 378, was declared legally untenable.
“In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions, that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant’s brand” the Court held.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the victims (including corporations) have an enforceable right to appeal acquittals without seeking leave under Section 378 CrPC. Also, it cements the idea that enforcement of IPRs through the criminal process also carries the full participatory rights for the affected rights-holder. Finally, it is a strong reaffirmation of victim-centric criminal jurisprudence, evolving in line with global best practices and India’s constitutional commitment to access to justice.
Singh Law Chambers LLP led by its Managing Partner Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv represented Asian Paints Limited throughout the proceedings of this case i.e. before the Trial Court, Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench and the Supreme Court of India.
Case Details
Case Title: ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED Versus Ram Babu
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.9888 OF 2024
Date: JULY 14, 2025
Read More: CBIC Announces Transfer and Postings of Senior Customs Officers
