Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu (2025) – Supreme Court Recognises Corporate Entities as “Victims” and Declares the Proviso to Section 372 CrPC a Stand-Alone, Unrestricted Appellate Remedy

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Anr., 2025 INSC 828, resolves a long-standing procedural debate: may a company, aggrieved by the acquittal of an accused in an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) prosecution, file an appeal as a “victim” under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) even when the acquittal is by a first appellate court?

Answering in the affirmative, the Court:

• Confirmed that the term “person” in Section 2(wa) includes juristic persons (companies, associations, bodies corporate) by virtue of Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Declared the proviso to Section 372 CrPC a self-contained, stand-alone right of appeal, unaffected by the leave requirements in Section 378 CrPC.
• Clarified that the victim’s right of appeal lies to “the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction” of the court whose order is challenged – hence, from a Sessions Court’s acquittal the appeal lies to the High Court, without any need for prior leave.

Parties & Timeline

• Appellant (Victim): Asian Paints Ltd., the renowned paint manufacturer whose trademarks/copyrights were allegedly counterfeited.
• Respondent 1 (Accused): Ram Babu, proprietor of “Ganpati Traders”, found with counterfeit paint buckets.
• Respondent 2: State of Rajasthan.
• Key Dates: FIR 06-02-2016 → Trial Court conviction 03-10-2019 → Sessions Court acquittal 16-02-2022 → High Court dismissal of victim’s appeal 09-10-2023 → Supreme Court judgment 14-07-2025.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order that had dismissed Asian Paints’ appeal as “not maintainable”.
2. Held that Asian Paints is a “victim” within Section 2(wa) because it suffered financial and reputational loss from trademark/copyright infringement.
3. Ruled that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC gives victims an absolute statutory right to appeal against any order of acquittal (or lesser conviction / inadequate compensation), independent of Section 378 CrPC.
4. Restored Asian Paints’ appeal (S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2354/2022) to the High Court for decision on merits.
5. Emphasised that a victim need not be the informant/complainant, nor must it secure leave of court before filing such appeal.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752
  3-Judge Bench; majority held that the proviso to Section 372 gives victims a substantive appellate right; “victim” includes anyone suffering loss from the crime.
• Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321
  Clarified that “victim” and “complainant/informant” are distinct; victims have participatory rights from investigation through appeal.
• Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184
  Reiterated that the 2009 amendment granting victims’ appellate rights must receive a liberal, purposive construction.
• The Court also referenced statutory definitions (CrPC §2(wa), IPC §11) and compared Sections 372, 374 & 378 CrPC to map appellate pathways.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Expansive Definition of “Victim”
   “Section 2(wa)… has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term ‘victim’… the Appellant is the ‘victim’ herein.”
   Corporate entities are “persons” (IPC §11); Asian Paints suffered concrete economic and reputational harm from counterfeit goods – fitting the statutory description.
2. Standalone Nature of the Proviso to §372
   • Section 372 opens with a negative clause (“No appeal shall lie…”) but its proviso carves out a positive, separate right.
   • The proviso is self-contained; it is not “guided or controlled” by Section 378.
   • Differentiated between:
     • §378: governs State/complaint-instituted appeals & requires “leave”.
     • Proviso to §372: empowers victims directly; no leave required.
3. Forum Determination “…such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.” Therefore, when a Sessions Court (as first appellate court) acquits, the appropriate forum is the High Court. The proviso does not limit the victim to appealing only against a trial court’s decision.
4. Effect of Prior Participation The fact that Asian Paints’ impleadment before the Sessions Court was only as an assisting party did not dilute its status as a victim for appellate purposes.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Jurisprudence

• Enhanced Victim Autonomy – Victims (including companies, NGOs, insurers, etc.) may now bypass the State’s inertia and independently challenge acquittals or inadequate sentences without procedural hurdles of leave petitions.
• IPR Enforcement – Corporations combating piracy and counterfeiting gain a direct appellate remedy, likely leading to more robust prosecution of economic crimes.
• Judicial Workload – High Courts can expect an uptick in victim-initiated appeals; the judgment implicitly calls for administrative readiness to manage this influx.
• Clarified Hierarchical Path – Removes confusion about whether victims must seek revision (under §§397/401 CrPC) or special-leave (under §378(4)); the choice is now distinctly the proviso to §372.
• Guidance for Subordinate Courts – Trial and appellate courts must recognise victims’ locus at every stage and ensure their voices are heard, aligning with constitutional mandates of fair procedure under Art. 21.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Victim (CrPC §2(wa)): Not limited to physically injured individuals; covers any person (including companies) suffering loss from the offence.
• Proviso to §372 vs. §378:
  • §372 Proviso – Victim’s personal right; no leave; any acquittal or inadequate order.
  • §378 – State’s/complainant’s right; leave required; textually limited to specific scenarios.
• First vs. Second Appellate Court:
  • Trial Court → First Appeal (Sessions or High Court) → Second Appeal (High Court or Supreme Court). The proviso allows a victim to jump to the next available appellate tier upon an acquittal, regardless of whether that acquittal occurs at trial or on first appeal.
• Revision (CrPC §§397/401): A discretionary supervisory jurisdiction; cannot convert acquittal to conviction. The judgment underscores that revision is not a substitute for the victim’s statutory right of appeal.
• Leave to Appeal: A preliminary permission required under §378(3)/(4); expressly not required for appeals under the victim-centric proviso to §372.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Asian Paints v. Ram Babu has:

• Solidified the jurisprudence that corporate entities are “victims” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
• Affirmed that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is an independent, substantive right permitting victims to appeal against any acquittal without the procedural fetters of Section 378.
• Provided clear appellate pathways, guarding against procedural denials of justice and reinforcing victim-centric reforms introduced in 2009.

By recalibrating the balance between State-controlled prosecutions and individual victim rights, the judgment marks a significant step toward a more inclusive and responsive criminal justice system—particularly crucial in the growing arena of economic and intellectual-property crimes.