Company Which Suffered Loss Due To Offence Can File Appeal As 'Victim' Against Acquittal Under S.372 CrPC : Supreme Court
Reiterating that the victim need not necessarily be a complainant/informant for filing an appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, the Supreme Court today (July 14) ruled that a company that suffers loss/damages due to acts of the accused can filed appeal against acquittal as a 'victim' under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
The bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the Appellant-Asian Paints Ltd. suffered loss due to the acts of the accused selling counterfeit paints. The complaint was filed by the Appellant's authorized agent under Sections 420 IPC and 63/65 Copyright Act.
The Appellant approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision to dismiss Asian Paints' appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC against the acquittal of the accused, holding that Asian Paints was not the "complainant" (only its agent was), therefore couldn't file an appeal against the acquittal.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah observed:
“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 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.”, the court added.
Reference was drawn from the latest case of Mahabir v State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 121 where the court observed that the right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. serves the salutary purpose of safeguarding the rights of the victim.
“The plain reading of the statement of objects and reasons for introducing the proviso to Section 372 CrPC makes it clear that it wanted to confer certain rights on the victims. It has been noted therein that the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime, and they don't have much role in the court proceedings. They need to be given certain “rights” and compensation, so that there is no distortion of the criminal justice system. This, by itself, is clear that the object of adding this proviso is to create a right in favour of the victim to prefer an appeal as a matter of right.”, the court observed in Mahabir v. State of Haryana.
The Court also held that 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.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appeal filed before the High Court was directed to be restored to its original file for adjudication on the merits. If the acquittal is by the first appellate court, then the appeal will lie to the High Court.
Cause Title: ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED VERSUS RAM BABU & ANOTHER
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 697
Click here to read/download the judgment
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Thakur Sumit, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv.