ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED versus RAM BABU & ANOTHER

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 14-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 573 : 2025 INSC 828
Asian Paints Limited  
v. 
Ram Babu & Another 
R1: Ram Babu 
R2: Sate of Rajasthan Through P.P., Jaipur
(Criminal Appeal No. 2952 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant-company falls under the definition of ‘victim’ 
in terms of s.2(wa) r/w the proviso to s.372, CrPC or whether s.378, 
CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances; whether an 
appeal under the proviso to s.372, 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.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.2(wa) r/w proviso 
to s.372; s.378 – Counterfeit products were sold in the  
appellant-company’s name by Respondent No.1, complaint 
filed through its authorized representative – FIR filed  
u/ss.420/120B, IPC and s.63/65, Copyright Act – Respondent 
No.1 was convicted by Trial Court however, was acquitted 
by First Appellate Court – Appellant filed appeal u/proviso to 
s.372 – Dismissed by High Court holding that the appellant’s 
appeal as a victim under the proviso to s.372 was not 
maintainable as the appellant was neither considered as 
complainant nor as victim before the Trial Court – Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable – Appellant is the ‘victim’ – Ultimately, it is 
the appellant who suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products 
being sold/attempted to be sold – It would suffer financial loss and 
reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public 
under the mistaken belief that they belonged to the Appellant’s 
brand – High Court took an extreme direction while interpreting 
the term ‘complainant’ to be only the person who actually filed 
the written complaint – It is not necessary for the ‘victim’ to also 
* Author
574
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be the ‘complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case – Thus, 
High Court erred in holding that the Appellant cannot be a ‘victim’ 
as it is only the complainant who can maintain such appeal and 
further, that even the complainant could maintain the appeal only 
after seeking the leave of the High Court in view of the provisions 
of s.378(3), CrPC – Right of a victim to prefer an appeal under 
the proviso to s.372 is not restricted by any other provision of the 
CrPC – s.372 is a self-contained, stand-alone and independent 
Section – It is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX 
of the CrPC – The proviso to s.372 shall not be read conjointly 
with any other provision in the CrPC, much less s.378 – Finding 
of the High Court that the Appellant could not have maintained the 
appeal before it negates the proviso to s.372 – Impugned judgment 
set aside. [Paras 37, 42-44, 50, 51]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.372 – Appeal 
under, if restricted only to mean an appeal to the First Appellate 
Court or includes even an appeal to the Second Appellate 
Court/High Court:
Held: The language of the proviso to s.372 is unambiguous – Right to 
appeal accrues on the ‘victim’ from the instance of a Court acquitting 
the accused – Proviso to s.372 is agnostic to the factum of such 
acquittal being by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court – Also, 
in the present case, 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 – However, for that purpose, the 
High Court could also have been the First Appellate Court, if the Trial 
Court, being a Court of Sessions, had acquitted the accused – 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 
u/s.378, CrPC, is factually and legally erroneous. [Paras 46, 47]
Case Law Cited
Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu [2022] 4 SCR 536 : 
(2022) 9 SCC 321 – held applicable.
Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka [2018] 13 SCR 1 :  
(2019) 2 SCC 752; Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 120 : 
2025 SCC OnLine SC 184 – relied on.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 
575
Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Trade Marks 
Act, 1999; Copyright Act, 1957.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.