Summary of Judgment Asian Paints Limited vs. Ram Babu & Anr.

Related Law:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 2(wa), 372 (Proviso), 374, 378

• Copyright Act, 1957 – Sections 63 & 65

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 120B

Citation: 2025 INSC 828
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited vs. Ram Babu & Anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Date of Judgment: 14th July 2025

Background

1. Factual Context:
   Asian Paints Limited (Appellant), a leading paint manufacturer, discovered counterfeit products being sold under its brand name at Ganpati Traders, owned by Ram Babu (Respondent No. 1).
   A complaint was filed by Pankaj Kumar Singh (investigator appointed by Asian Paints’ authorized agent) under Sections 420/120B IPC and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act.
   Trial Court (2019): Convicted Ram Babu under IPC and Copyright Act.
   First Appellate Court (2022): Acquitted Ram Babu, citing lack of evidence.

2. High Court’s Impugned Order (2023):
   Dismissed Asian Paints’ appeal under Proviso to Section 372 CrPC, holding:
   Asian Paints was neither the "complainant" nor the "victim" as per Section 2(wa) CrPC.
   Appeal against acquittal by the First Appellate Court was not maintainable under Section 372 CrPC; only Section 378 CrPC (requiring special leave) applied.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether Asian Paints qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC for filing an appeal against acquittal.

2. Whether the Proviso to Section 372 CrPC allows a victim to appeal against an appellate court’s acquittal order, or if Section 378 CrPC (special leave) is mandatory.

Supreme Court’s Decision

1. Asian Paints is a "Victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC:
   Definition: A "victim" includes any person/entity suffering loss/injury due to the accused’s actions.
   Application: Asian Paints suffered financial and reputational harm due to counterfeit products. The investigator (Pankaj Kumar Singh) acted on its behalf.
   Precedent Cited: Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022) – "Victim" and "complainant" are distinct; a victim need not be the complainant.

2. Proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a Standalone Right:
   Scope: Allows victims to appeal against acquittal, lesser conviction, or inadequate compensation without restrictions under Section 378 CrPC.
   Hierarchy of Appeals:
   If acquittal is by Trial Court, appeal lies to the First Appellate Court.
   If acquittal is by First Appellate Court, appeal lies to the High Court (next higher forum).
   Precedent Cited: Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) – Victims’ rights under Section 372 CrPC are independent and expansive.

3. High Court’s Error:
   Incorrectly conflated Section 372 with Section 378 CrPC.
   Overlooked that Asian Paints’ appeal was filed as a "victim," not a "complainant."

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding:
  Asian Paints is a "victim" entitled to appeal under Proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
  Section 372 CrPC is independent of Section 378 CrPC; no special leave is required for victims.

• Directions:
  High Court to rehear Asian Paints’ appeal on merits.
  Case to be expedited (incident dates back to 2016).

Final Note: The judgment reinforces victims’ rights under CrPC, ensuring entities like Asian Paints can challenge acquittals directly without procedural hurdles.

Key Statutes Referenced:

• CrPC: Sections 2(wa), 372, 374, 378

• Copyright Act: Sections 63 (infringement), 65 (possession of plates for infringement).

• IPC: Sections 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy).