Proviso to Section 372 CrPC Allows Corporate Victim to File Appeal Against Acquittal

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by a corporate complainant challenging the High Court’s refusal to entertain an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC; the narrow question was whether a company fell within the statutory definition of “victim” in Section 2(wa) and whether Section 378 CrPC curtailed the right to appeal in the circumstances of an acquittal by the first appellate court.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order that had dismissed the S.B. Criminal Appeal as not maintainable, and held that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC constituted a self-contained statutory right enabling a victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. The Court observed that the corporate appellant had suffered “financial loss and reputational injury” and therefore came within the scope of “victim” in Section 2(wa). The Court emphasised that the proviso operated independently of Section 378 and other provisions of Chapter XXIX. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 further recorded that “the Appellant is the ‘victim’ herein” and that “the right to appeal accrues on the ‘victim’ from the instance of a Court acquitting the accused.”

Background

The dispute arose from allegations that counterfeit paint products were being sold in the name of a leading paint manufacturer. The appellant company had executed a power of attorney in favour of an IPR consultancy (M/s Solution), which authorised field operative Pankaj Kumar Singh to investigate and file complaints. On 6 February 2016 Singh informed police that counterfeit paint buckets were stocked at a shop owned by Respondent No.1; police seized the suspected buckets and arrested him. FIR No.30/2016 was registered under Sections 420/120B IPC and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act. Forensic analysis reportedly found discrepancies between seized material and genuine product.

The trial court convicted Respondent No.1 and sentenced him to terms of imprisonment and fines under IPC and the Copyright Act. On appeal, the Sessions Court (First Appellate Court) set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused on 16 February 2022. The appellant sought to invoke the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to challenge that acquittal before the High Court; the High Court dismissed the S.B. Criminal Appeal on maintainability grounds, holding that the appellant had not been a complainant before the trial court and that Section 378 restricted appeals in cases of acquittal.

On appeal to this Court the appellant argued that a literal and purposive reading of Section 2(wa) made clear that “person” included a company and that the proviso to Section 372 created an independent right for a victim to appeal “against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused.” The respondents argued that appeals against acquittal were governed by Section 378 and that leave or special leave, as applicable, was necessary. The Supreme Court analysed the statutory text and precedents including Mallikarjun Kodagali and Jagjeet Singh, held that the proviso to Section 372 was an enabling, substantive provision conferring a right on a victim, and concluded that the High Court’s approach negated that statutory right.

The Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment, held the appellant’s S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB No.2354/2022) maintainable, and restored the appeal to its original file and number before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The Registrar (Judicial), Jaipur Bench, was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for allocation to a Single Judge and expeditious hearing. The Court clarified that it decided only the preliminary question of law and granted respondent liberty to raise all defences on merits; no order as to costs was made.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 828 Case Title: Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocates not specified in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocates not specified in the judgment]