The Supreme Court recognized a vendor selling paint products using the trademark of Asian Paints, ruling that companies can be a ‘victim’ under Criminal Law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India on Monday granted relief to Asian Paints in an intellectual property rights infringement case and broadened the interpretation of Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case stemmed from a 2016 survey in Rajasthan, where the company found counterfeit paint products being sold under its trademark.
ALSO READ: Old Mist vs. Old Monk: Himachal HC Halts Sale Over Trademark Clash
A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled that the term “victim” under the CrPC includes both natural and juristic persons, such as companies. This interpretation allows corporate entities to appeal as victims in criminal cases. The verdict overturned a previous decision by the Rajasthan High Court, which had held that only the original complainant, an agent of Asian Paints, could file the appeal.
Background of the Case
Asian Paints Ltd., a reputed paint manufacturer, appointed Mr. Ajay Singh of M/s Solution to investigate and act against counterfeiters violating its intellectual property rights. Mr. Singh delegated authority to Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, who discovered counterfeit Asian Paints products being sold at Ganpati Traders, owned by Rambabu (Respondent No.1).
Police seized the fake items and arrested Rambabu. An FIR was registered under Sections 420/120B of the IPC and Sections 63 & 65 of the Copyright Act.
Following investigation and forensic analysis confirming the counterfeit nature of the goods, the Trial Court convicted Rambabu and sentenced him to undergo 3 years’ Simple Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, under Section 420 of the IPC, 2 years’ Simple Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 under
Section 63 of the Copyright Act and 1 year’s Simple Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 65 of the Copyright Act.
Rambabu appealed, and the First Appellate Court acquitted him on 16.02.2022. Asian Paints challenged this acquittal before the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, claiming victim status.
However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding it was not maintainable, as Asian Paints was not treated as a “victim” or “complainant” in the original proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court gave a landmark decision on the interpretation of “victim” under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The company represented by Ajay Singh argued that as a corporate entity, it qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, emphasizing that “person” as defined under Section 11 of the IPC includes companies.
Citing the precedent set in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, Singh highlighted that victims, including companies, have participatory rights from investigation through to appeal. Asian Paints contended that the reputational and financial harm caused by counterfeiting justified its standing and that the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 is an independent and substantive right, not contingent on the state filing an appeal.
The respondents, supported by the state, claimed the company lacked standing as it wasn’t the original complainant and should have pursued other remedies like a revision petition or special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC.
ALSO READ: ‘Operation Sindoor’ Trademark Applications Filed in the US and UK
However, the Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that “victim” and “complainant” are distinct legal categories, and a victim need not be the original complainant to file an appeal under Section 372. The Court held that the proviso to Section 372 grants a standalone right that is not subject to Section 378. The bench stated,
“We may also indicate that the right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which was inserted by Act V of 2009 with effect from 31.12.2009, is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC.”
In its judgment, the Bench affirmed that Asian Paints clearly suffered financial and reputational harm due to counterfeit goods and therefore had the right to appeal the acquittal.
The Court said,
“In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold or attempted to be sold as those manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products were purchased by the public under the mistaken belief that they belonged to the Appellant’s brand.”
The Rajasthan High Court’s contrary view was set aside by the Apex Court.
Singh Law Chambers LLP hailed the verdict, stating that the ruling strengthens intellectual property rights enforcement through the criminal justice system by confirming full participatory rights for corporate victims. He said,
“The Supreme Court affirmed that the victims (including corporations) have an enforceable right to appeal acquittals without seeking leave under Section 378 CrPC.”
Case Title: ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED VERSUS RAM BABU & ANOTHER
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.9888 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Trademarks
Click Here to Read Our Reports on IPR
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
