Corporate Victims Have Statutory Right to Appeal Against Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Asian Paints’ Right Under Section 372 CrPC

“Victim Need Not Be Complainant – Loss or Injury Is The Touchstone”, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed and expanded the rights of corporate victims in criminal proceedings. In this case of Asian Paints Limited , the Court ruled that a corporate entity that suffers financial and reputational harm due to criminal acts is entitled to appeal against acquittal orders under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), regardless of whether it was the complainant or informant in the case.

The Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision which had dismissed Asian Paints’ appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused selling counterfeit paint products. The High Court had erroneously held that a company is neither a “complainant” nor a “victim” under CrPC and hence had no right to appeal.

Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court categorically held: “Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term ‘victim’ and not a narrow or restricted meaning… There cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to counterfeit/fake products being sold… The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant’s brand.” [Para 37]

Court Observes: “Section 372 CrPC Is A Standalone Right Not Controlled By Section 378”

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the appeal by Asian Paints, filed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, was maintainable in light of the acquittal having been granted by the First Appellate Court (Sessions Court), and whether the bar under Section 378 CrPC could restrict this right.

The Supreme Court categorically clarified the independence of the right under Section 372:

“Section 372 of the CrPC is a self-contained and independent Section; in other words, it is a stand-alone Section… The proviso to Section 372 operates independently and shall not be read conjointly with any other provision in the CrPC, much less Section 378.” [Para 43]

“It is not necessary for the ‘victim’ to also be the ‘complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case.” [Para 44]

The Court also pointed out the logical fallacy in the High Court’s reasoning:

“The High Court’s approach would amount to completely negating the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.” [Para 43]

“Acquittal At Appellate Stage Does Not Deny Victim’s Right Of Appeal”: Supreme Court Rejects Restrictive Interpretation

Addressing the argument that a victim’s appeal lies only against an acquittal at the trial stage, the Supreme Court held:

“The proviso to Section 372 is agnostic to the factum of such acquittal being by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court… Since, in the present case, for the first time, the acquittal comes at the stage of the First Appellate 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.” [Para 47]

The Court thus clarified that Asian Paints had the statutory right to file an appeal before the High Court challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court.

“Proviso to Section 372 CrPC Is A Substantive, Liberal, Victim-Centric Provision”

Emphasizing the victim-centric nature of the 2009 amendment introducing Section 372’s proviso, the Court observed:

“The right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC… is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC. It serves the salutary purpose of safeguarding the rights of the victim.” [Para 50]

The Court extensively cited its own precedents, particularly:

• Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, where the Court recognised the standalone right of victims to appeal under Section 372 CrPC;

• Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, reaffirming that “victim” and “complainant” are distinct and a victim has participatory rights throughout the criminal process.

Quoting from Jagjeet Singh (supra), the Court reiterated:

“A ‘victim’ within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings… It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’…” [Para 21]

Court Reproaches High Court for Misreading Impleadment: “Appellant Was Heard As Complainant By Consent”

The Supreme Court also took exception to the High Court’s incorrect observation that the Appellant’s application for impleadment was rejected during appellate proceedings. The Court noted:

“Though no formal order on the impleadment may have been passed, the Appellant’s arguments were heard by the First Appellate Court, as the complainant… Respondent No.1 had agreed that the Appellant be also heard.” [Para 34]

This, the Court held, demonstrated clear recognition of Asian Paints’ role as an affected party.

High Court Order Set Aside, Appeal Restored For Merits Hearing

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored Asian Paints’ appeal for hearing on merits before the High Court. The Court directed:

“The Appellant’s Appeal is held maintainable and is restored to its original file and number before the High Court… The High Court is requested to allocate the same to a learned Single Bench to hear the matter on merits expeditiously.” [Paras 51-52]

In a significant direction intended to bring closure to the long-pending matter, the Supreme Court observed:

“Since the incident in question is of the year 2016, the High Court shall hear the matter on merits expeditiously as per the Board position.” [Para 52]

Notably, the Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the factual merits of the case: “In this appeal, we have dealt with and decided only the question of law raised. Respondent No.1 will be at complete liberty to raise all defences of fact and law, as may be available, on merits.” [Para 54]

Conclusion: Supreme Court Reaffirms Expansive Interpretation Of Victim Rights, Especially For Corporate Victims

This judgment reiterates the principle that corporate entities, who are increasingly victims of sophisticated white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting and intellectual property theft, are entitled to full participatory rights in the criminal process, including the right to appeal against acquittal without being shackled by procedural technicalities.

By giving robust life to the legislative intent behind the 2009 amendment of CrPC, the Supreme Court’s decision strengthens the victim’s role in the criminal justice system.

Date of Decision: 14th July 2025