Right To Appeal Accrues On Victim From The Instance Of A Court Acquitting Accused: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said that there is no doubt that the Appellant is the ‘victim’ herein and it is not necessary for the ‘victim’ to also be the ‘Complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that the right to Appeal accrues on the ‘victim’ from the instance of a Court acquitting the accused.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court’s Single Judge, who dismissed an Appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) as not maintainable.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “From the aforesaid elucidation, it is clear that the right to appeal accrues on the ‘victim’ from the instance of a Court acquitting the accused. The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is agnostic to the factum of such acquittal being by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. We can see the situation through another lens also. In the facts at hand, acquittal was by the First Appellate Court and not by the Trial Court. Therefore, since, in the present case, for the first time, the acquittal comes in at the stage of the First Appellate Court (being a Sessions Court), in law, the right of appeal by the victim would be to the next higher level in the judicial hierarchy, which would be the High Court.”
The Bench emphasised that the language employed by the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is unambiguous to the effect that the victim shall have a right to prefer an Appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such Appeal shall lie to the Court to which an Appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.
AOR Anuvrat Sharma represented the Appellant while AOR Arvind Gupta represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant-Asian Paints Limited, a public limited company, has been engaged in the business of manufacturing paint and paint products for approximately the last 73 years. In the face of counterfeit products being made and sold in the market in its name and style, the Appellant had given a Power of Attorney (PoA) to one proprietor of an IPR consultancy firm through its authorized representatives, who were tasked with monitoring, tracking down, and investigating unauthorised and illegal practices employed in respect of the Appellant’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Cases of trademark infringement, passing off etcetera were to be detected, and the proprietor was also asked to undertake survey, investigate and act against any person found to be engaged in violating or infringing the Appellant’s IPR, including but not limited to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957. Subsequently, the proprietor authorised another person i.e., the Complainant to undertake his tasks.
The said Complainant presented written information at the police station that he saw counterfeit products claiming to be of the Appellant at a shop which was owned by the Respondent. The shop was thoroughly checked, wherein 12 buckets purportedly filled with paint bearing a mark similar to that of the Appellant were found. The counterfeit buckets were handed over to the police, who seized them and arrested the Respondent. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. The Trial Court convicted the Respondent and sentenced him to undergo 3 years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The First Appellate Court acquitted him and being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the High Court. The High Court held that since the Appellant was neither considered as Complainant nor as victim before the Trial Court, his Appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC was unsustainable. Hence, he was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “We are constrained to observe that the finding of the High Court that the Appellant could not have maintained the appeal before it would amount to completely negating the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. In our considered opinion, Section 372 of the CrPC is a self-contained and independent Section; in other words, it is a stand-alone Section. Section 372 of the CrPC is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX of the CrPC. The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC operates independently of and shall not be read conjointly with any other provision in the CrPC, much less Section 378 of the CrPC.”
The Court said that there is no doubt that the Appellant is the ‘victim’ herein and it is not necessary for the ‘victim’ to also be the ‘Complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case.
“Furthermore, another aspect that needs to be considered is as to whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC would be restricted only to mean an appeal to the First Appellate Court or include even an appeal to the Second Appellate Court/High Court, which happens to be the case herein”, it added.
The Court further remarked that the High Court could also have been the First Appellate Court, if the Trial Court, being a Court of Sessions, had acquitted the accused and thus, the reasoning of the High Court that if the Appellant was allowed to maintain the Appeal, it would amount to an Appeal as envisaged under Section 378 of the CrPC, is factually and legally erroneous.
“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. It serves the salutary purpose of safeguarding the rights of the victim”, it also observed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 828)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Anuvrat Sharma, Advocates Ajay Singh, and Alka Sinha.
Respondents: AORs Arvind Gupta, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, and Advocate Thakur Sumit.
