New Delhi, July 19, 2025 — The Supreme Court has ruled that Asian Paints Limited qualifies as a “victim” in a criminal case involving counterfeit products and can directly appeal against the acquittal of the accused, even though it was not the original complainant in the matter.
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a 2023 order of the Rajasthan High Court which had dismissed Asian Paints' appeal on the grounds that only the original complainant an investigator hired by a third-party firm — could challenge the acquittal.
Case Background
The case originated in February 2016, when a complaint was lodged with Jaipur police by Pankaj Kumar Singh, an investigator appointed by a private firm engaged by Asian Paints. The complaint alleged that a shop named Ganpati Traders, operated by one Ram Babu, was selling counterfeit paint products bearing Asian Paints branding. The police subsequently registered an FIR under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Twelve paint buckets were seized and forensic testing confirmed the products were not manufactured by Asian Paints.
While a local court in 2019 convicted Ram Babu and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, the conviction was overturned in 2022 by an appellate court, leading Asian Paints to file an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court which was dismissed for want of locus standi.
Supreme Court Ruling
The apex court termed the High Court’s interpretation of the law as "mechanical and narrow", stating that the definition of ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) includes any party suffering direct harm financial, reputational, or otherwise due to a criminal offence. The Court noted that the fake products, if purchased by consumers, would lead to reputational damage and financial loss for Asian Paints.
“Ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold...,” the bench held, adding that Asian Paints had a direct and vested interest in pursuing justice in the matter.
The Court clarified that the 2009 amendment to Section 372 of the CrPC grants an independent and substantive right to a ‘victim’ to file an appeal against acquittal, without requiring government sanction under Section 378.
The bench also clarified that this victim’s right to appeal applies not just to acquittals by trial courts, but also to those by appellate courts.
Implications
This judgment significantly strengthens the rights of victims including corporate entities in criminal cases involving counterfeiting, IP infringement, and financial harm. It affirms that victims have a direct and independent right to seek justice, regardless of whether they were the original complainants.
By interpreting Section 372 of the CrPC as a stand-alone provision, the Supreme Court ensures broader access to appellate remedies for those affected by criminal conduct, and sets a legal precedent that could influence future brand protection and anti-counterfeiting litigation.