In a significant ruling that reinforces the rights of victims in the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court of India, in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another, has held that a company can be considered a ‘victim’ and possesses an independent right to appeal against an acquittal. The judgment provides crucial clarity on the scope of a victim’s rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), particularly in the context of corporate entities suffering from economic offenses.
Factual Matrix
The case originated from a complaint filed against Ram Babu, the proprietor of Ganpati Traders, for allegedly selling counterfeit paint products under the brand name of Asian Paints Limited. The company had authorized an IPR consultancy firm, M/s Solution, to investigate and act against intellectual property infringements. An investigator from this firm, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, lodged the initial complaint, leading to an FIR under sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Trial Court convicted Ram Babu. However, the First Appellate Court (the Sessions Court) overturned this decision and acquitted him. Aggrieved, Asian Paints filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, asserting its right as a ‘victim’ under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling it was not maintainable because the company was neither the complainant nor a victim in the eyes of the court below. This dismissal was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Questions and Arguments
The Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a neat question of law: could Asian Paints, a public limited company, be defined as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, and consequently, could it file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against an appellate court’s acquittal order?
- Appellant’s Contentions (Asian Paints):
- A ‘person’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC includes a company, as defined by Section 11 of the IPC.
- The company suffered direct financial and reputational loss due to the sale of counterfeit goods, thus qualifying as a ‘victim’.
- The right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 is a standalone provision for victims and is not restricted to challenging acquittals from a trial court only.
- Respondent’s Contentions (Ram Babu & State):
- The complainant was the investigator, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, not the company.
- The State argued that the company should have sought Special Leave to Appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, a provision typically used by complainants.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Rationale
The Supreme Court, through the bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivered a robust and progressive interpretation of victim’s rights, overturning the High Court’s decision.
A Company Can Be a Victim
The Court firmly established that a corporate entity falls within the definition of a ‘victim’. It reasoned that the language of Section 2(wa) CrPC—which defines a victim as a “person who has suffered any loss or injury”—is expansive. The ultimate sufferer of the financial loss and reputational damage from counterfeiting was undeniably Asian Paints. The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, clarifying that the ‘victim’ and the ‘complainant’ are distinct legal entities; a victim need not be the person who lodges the FIR.
An Independent and Substantive Right to Appeal
The cornerstone of the judgment is its interpretation of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. The Court declared it to be a “self-contained and independent” and “stand-alone” provision. This right, introduced by a 2009 amendment, was intended to empower victims, who are often the “worst sufferers in a crime.”
The Court held that this right is not constrained by the procedural hurdles of Section 378 CrPC, which governs appeals by the State or by complainants and often requires ‘leave’ from the High Court. Citing its previous decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, the Court affirmed that a victim’s right to appeal against acquittal is substantive and does not require seeking special leave.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the right accrues whenever an acquittal occurs. The phrase “any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused” is not limited to orders from the trial court. In this case, since the acquittal was handed down by the First Appellate Court, the victim’s right to appeal arose at that moment, with the appeal correctly directed to the next judicial tier—the High Court.
Relevance and Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is a landmark for several reasons:
- Strengthens Corporate IPR Enforcement: It provides a powerful legal weapon to corporations battling intellectual property theft and counterfeiting. It empowers them to pursue justice independently, ensuring that their financial and reputational interests are protected even if the State does not appeal an acquittal.
- Expands the Horizon of Victim Jurisprudence: The decision solidifies the legal recognition of ‘corporate victimhood’ in criminal law. By applying a liberal and beneficial interpretation, it aligns Indian law with global principles that recognize the multifaceted nature of harm caused by crime.
- Provides Procedural Certainty: It eliminates ambiguity regarding a victim’s right to
appeal. By declaring the proviso to Section 372 as a standalone right, the Court has made
the remedy more accessible and less cumbersome for all victims, not just corporations. - Upholds Legislative Intent: The judgment gives full effect to the 2009 amendment, which
was specifically enacted to move the criminal justice system from a state-centric model to
one that acknowledges and protects the rights and interests of the victim.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu is a definitive
pronouncement on the rights of a victim. By setting aside the High Court’s “erroneous” and
narrow view, the Court has restored the appeal and paved the way for a more inclusive and just
criminal process where the voice of the one who suffers loss is heard, irrespective of whether
that entity is a natural person or a corporation.
