For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Introduction
In a significant judgment delivered on 14 July 2025 in Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu & Another, Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (SLP (Crl) No. 9888 of 2024), the Supreme Court of India clarified the rights of Intellectual Property (IP) owners affected by counterfeiting in criminal matters. The issue was whether a company like Asian Paints could be treated as a “victim” under the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether it could file an appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court ruled in favour of Asian Paints, holding that corporate victims are entitled to challenge acquittals even if they are not the original complainants or if the case was filed based on a police report.
The proviso to Section 372, inserted by the 2009 Amendment to the CrPC, gives a “victim” the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or imposition of inadequate compensation. This right is independent and available to the victim even in cases instituted on a police report, and it does not require prior permission of the court under Section 378 of the CrPC which deals with appeals against acquittals filed either by the State or by a complainant in certain categories of cases. Specifically, under Section 378(4), a private complainant must seek special leave from the High Court to appeal an acquittal in a case initiated by a complaint. In the present matter, the Supreme Court clarified that this route is not applicable to a “victim” appealing under the proviso to Section 372.
Facts of the Case
Asian Paints Limited, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing paint products for over seven decades, was facing the circulation of counterfeit goods in the market. To safeguard its intellectual property, Asian Paints had engaged a firm, which in turn deployed a private investigator to monitor and investigate unauthorised use of its trademarks and packaging.
On 6 February 2016, the investigator identified counterfeit paint buckets resembling Asian Paints’ products being sold at a retail shop called Ganpati Traders, owned by the respondent Ram Babu. A police raid followed, and 12 buckets of paint some marked as “Ace Emulsion” and some as “Tractor Emulsion”, were seized. These counterfeit buckets lacked the company’s mark typically found on genuine packaging. Genuine samples were also submitted for comparison, and forensic reports confirmed the discrepancies.
An FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. The matter proceeded to trial and resulted in a conviction, but the acquittal came later on appeal.
Lower Courts’ Decisions
The Trial Court convicted Ram Babu under all charges and sentenced him to simple imprisonment ranging from one to three years with corresponding fines. However, in February 2022, the First Appellate Court set aside the conviction and acquitted him. Asian Paints then filed a criminal appeal before the Rajasthan High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that Asian Paints had no locus standi since it was not the complainant and that an appeal against an acquittal passed in a criminal appeal (under Section 374) could not be challenged by a non-State party under Section 372.
Asian Paints’ Submissions Before the Supreme Court
Asian Paints argued that it qualified as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, which defines a victim as any person who has suffered loss or injury due to the offence. By virtue of Section 11 of the IPC, a “person” includes juristic entities like companies. Therefore, Asian Paints had the right to appeal.
The company submitted that the proviso to Section 372 gave it an independent right to file an appeal without needing leave under Section 378. The fact that the case was based on a police report and not a private complaint did not restrict the victim’s right to appeal. The company also pointed out that it was allowed to assist the prosecution during the appeal, demonstrating its interest in the case.
It relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321, and Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, which recognised broad participatory rights for victims throughout criminal proceedings and clarified that Section 372 operates independently of Section 378.
Respondents’ Submissions
Ram Babu, the accused, contended that only the State or complainant could appeal an acquittal. He argued that the FIR was lodged by someone who was neither an employee nor an authorised representative of Asian Paints, and that Asian Paints itself was never impleaded. He claimed that the proper course was for the State to file an appeal under Section 378, or for the company to seek special leave under Section 378(4), if applicable.
The State of Rajasthan supported this position and maintained that Asian Paints should have used the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397 or 401, rather than appealing under Section 372.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that Asian Paints was indeed a victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. The counterfeit goods were intended to deceive customers and caused both financial and reputational injury to the company. The Court confirmed that a company could be recognised as a victim, and that its role in assisting the prosecution was sufficient to establish its interest.
The Court found the High Court’s reasoning to be incorrect. It held that the right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was a substantive and standalone right. This right does not depend on the complainant’s role in the original case and does not require leave under Section 378. The Court reaffirmed this interpretation through Mallikarjun Kodagali, which explicitly allowed victims to file appeals even in cases based on police reports.
The Court also referred to the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, stating that victims must have access to justice, and the criminal process should not exclude them from pursuing legitimate remedies.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the criminal appeal to its original number before the Rajasthan High Court. It directed that the matter be heard afresh on merits.
Conclusion
This judgment is a major step forward for intellectual property owners facing criminal counterfeiting. The Supreme Court has clarified that companies affected by IP crimes are not without remedy, they can appeal acquittals even if the State chooses not to. The judgment upholds the broader purpose of the 2009 amendment to Section 372 and strengthens victims’ rights in the criminal justice system. For brand owners and other IP holders, this is a clear signal that the law recognises their standing in such matters, and they need not depend solely on the State to protect their interests.
