Facts

Asian Paints Limited discovered counterfeit paint products being sold under its brand name by Ram Babu at Ganpati Traders. The company had appointed M/s Solution through a Power of Attorney to investigate IPR violations. Following the discovery of 12 buckets of fake paint products bearing Asian Paints’ trademarks, an FIR was filed under IPC Sections 420, 120B and Copyright Act Sections 63, 65. The trial court convicted Ram Babu, but the Sessions Court acquitted him. When Asian Paints appealed to the High Court under Section 372 proviso of CrPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the company was neither a “complainant” nor a “victim” and therefore lacked standing to file such appeals.

Key issue

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether Asian Paints Limited falls under the definition of “victim” in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and can file an appeal under Section 372 proviso, or whether Section 378 provisions would prevail. The case essentially determined whether companies can directly pursue criminal remedies for IPR violations and appeal acquittal orders as victims.

Supreme Court Judgement

The Supreme Court held that Section 2(wa) of CrPC defines “victim” expansively as “a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged.” Since “person” includes companies under Section 11 of the IPC, Asian Paints clearly qualified as a victim having suffered both financial loss and reputational injury from counterfeit products being sold under its brand. The Court emphasized that Section 372 of the CrPC is a “self-contained and independent section” that operates independently of Section 378, and victims can appeal acquittal orders from any court level without requiring special leave.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored Asian Paints’ appeal, directing expeditious hearing on merits. The Court clarified that victim appeal rights are “agnostic to whether acquittal comes from Trial Court or First Appellate Court” and serve the “salutary purpose of safeguarding the rights of the victim.” 

Conclusion

This decision significantly strengthens criminal enforcement of IPR by allowing companies to directly challenge acquittals, bypass complex civil procedures, and leverage state machinery for IP protection.. The court’s interpretation of Section 2(wa) CrPC to include companies like Asian Paints is a progressive step, acknowledging that businesses suffer tangible losses from counterfeiting. The independence of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC empowers companies to directly challenge acquittals without navigating the procedural hurdles of Section 378 CrPC, which is often State-driven. This ruling strengthens corporate recourse against IPR infringements, encouraging proactive enforcement. 

Case – Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another [July 2025]