2025 INSC 828

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 202 5

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.9888 OF 2024]

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED …APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAM BABU & ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

R1: RAM BABU

R2: STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH P.P., JAIPUR

J U D G M E N T

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted.

2.I.A. No.151948/2024 seeking exemption from filing O.T. is

allowed.

3.The present Criminal Appeal traces its genesis to the impugned

Final Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2023 in S.B. Criminal Appeal

(SB) No.2354/2022 [2023:RJ-JP:36178] (hereinafter referred to as the

1 of 28

‘Impugned Judgment’) rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘High Court’), whereby the High Court dismissed the Appellant’s

appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) as not maintainable.

A neat question of law of significance is raised herein, namely, as to

whether the Appellant would fall under the definition of ‘victim’ in terms of

Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or

whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

FACTUAL SETTING:

4.The Appellant, Asian Paints Limited, a public limited company, has

been engaged in the business of manufacturing paint and paint products

for approximately the last 73 years. Its Head Office is located in Mumbai,

Maharashtra. In the face of counterfeit products being made and sold in

the market in its name and style, the Appellant had given a Power of

Attorney (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PoA’) to one Mr. Ajay Singh,

Proprietor, M/s Solution (an IPR consultancy firm) through its authorized

representatives, who were tasked with monitoring, tracking down and

2 of 28

investigating unauthorised and illegal practices employed in respect of

the Appellant’s Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter referred to as

‘IPR’) comprising, inter alia, trademarks and copyrights owned/used by

the Appellant. Cases of trademark infringement, passing off etcetera

were to be detected, and Mr. Ajay Singh was also asked to undertake

survey, investigate and act against any person found to be engaged in

violating or infringing the Appellant’s IPR, including but not limited to the

Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘Copyright Act’).

5.Subsequently, Mr. Ajay Singh authorized Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh

to undertake surveys, inquire, detect and investigate against any and all

organisations/individuals for any violation/infringement/passing off or

unauthorized/unlawful use of the Appellant’s brand names, trademarks,

copyrights, special packing and designs (whether registered in the name

of the Appellant and/or being used under license) apropos sub-standard

and even counterfeit products, as also to file the necessary complaints

against organizations/individuals responsible for the same, with the

appropriate enforcement agency, Department, Police, Courts or any

special agency for this purpose and to take all necessary action for and

on behalf of M/s Solution. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh was also to ensure

3 of 28

immediate stoppage of such violation and inform and report to M/s

Solution instantly and periodically, the status of such complaints.

6.The complainant-Pankaj Kumar Singh presented written

information at the Tunga Police Station to the effect that on 06.02.2016,

when he visited Tunga, he saw that counterfeit products, claiming to be

of the Appellant, were kept at the shop of Ganpati Traders, which was

owned by Respondent No.1. He disclosed his identity to the police and

showed other relevant documents. After seeing all the documents, a

police team accompanied him to the Ganpati Traders’ shop from the

Police Station.

7.The shop was thoroughly checked, wherein 12 buckets purportedly

filled with paint bearing a mark similar to that of the Appellant were

found. When the police asked the person sitting at the shop for his name

and address, he said his name was Rambabu, Respondent No.1

[Rambabu or Ram Babu, as spelt in some records, is the same person].

In all, 4 buckets of Ace Emulsion Paint, each containing 20 litres, and 4

Ace Emulsion 10-litre buckets were allegedly filled with counterfeit paints,

and further, 4 Tractor Emulsion 10-litre buckets also filled with counterfeit

paints were discovered. When they checked the buckets, they found no

4 of 28

company mark at the bottom, though the Appellant’s paint buckets

always carry such mark. The counterfeit buckets were handed over to

the police, who seized them and arrested Rambabu.

8.The complainant gave the Police two buckets filled with genuine

Asian paint, one bucket of 10 litres of Tractor Emulsion Paint and one

bucket of Ace Exterior emulsion Paint for the purpose of matching the

counterfeit paint with the genuine.

9.On 06.02.2016, the police filed First Information Report No.30/2016

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’) under Sections 420/120B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and under

Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act against Respondent No.1.

10.The investigation commenced, and the Investigating Officer

submitted the Final Report under Section 173 of the CrPC on 23.04.2016

for offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and Sections 63

and 65 of the Copyright Act against Respondent No.1.

11.The State Forensic Science Laboratory submitted its Report

No.fsl/jpr/qd/109/16 on 28.07.2016, stating that the seized counterfeit

5 of 28

material(s) did not tally with the original in size, spacing and design of

characters.

12.The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate No.13, Bassi, Jaipur, Metropolitan City

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) vide order dated 03.10.2019

convicted the Respondent No.1 under Section 420 of the IPC and under

Sections 63 & 65 of the Copyright Act and sentenced him to undergo 3

years’ Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand fine) under Section 420 of the IPC, 2 years’ Simple

Imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) under

Section 63 of the Copyright Act and 1 year Simple Imprisonment with fine

of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) under Section 65 of the

Copyright Act.

13.Pursuant to his conviction, Respondent No.1 preferred Criminal

Appeal No.1657/2019 under Section 374 of the CrPC against the order

of conviction supra before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bassi,

Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’).

6 of 28

14.Subsequently, vide Judgment dated 16.02.2022, the First Appellate

Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and acquitted the Respondent

No.1 of the offences charged.

15.Aggrieved by Respondent No.1’s acquittal, the Appellant preferred

S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2354/2022 under the proviso to Section

372 of the CrPC before the High Court, challenging the judgment of

acquittal dated 16.02.2022. The very maintainability of such appeal was

heavily contested by the Respondent No.1 before the High Court.

16.The High Court, after perusing the relevant materials and hearing

the parties, vide impugned order dismissed S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB)

No.2354/2022 filed by the Appellant on the ground that the Appeal under

the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC to challenge an order passed in

an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC was not maintainable. The

High Court opined that since the Appellant was neither considered as

complainant nor as victim before the Trial Court, therefore, the

Appellant’s Appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the

CrPC was unsustainable.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

7 of 28

17.The primary contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant

relates to the interpretation of the definition of ‘victim’ contained in

Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. It was pressed that a literal interpretation is

sufficient to establish that the Appellant squarely fell within the ambit of

the said provision.

18.Learned counsel submitted that the term ‘person’ in Section 2(wa)

of the CrPC also includes a ‘Company or Association or body of persons’

by virtue of Section 11 of the IPC. As such, the Appellant would fall within

the contours of the term ‘victim’.

19. To further substantiate the Appellant's claim, the learned counsel

pointed out that the underlying FIR which was lodged, giving rise to the

instant Appeal, was primarily registered under Sections 63/65 of the

Copyright Act, on account of infringement of the Appellant’s copyright by

the Respondent No.1. It was urged that this was sufficient to prove that it

was the Appellant who suffered ‘loss or injury’ as mentioned in Section

2(wa) of the CrPC. The loss/injury was in the nature of reputational and

financial losses on account of the commission of the afore-mentioned

offence(s) by Respondent No.1.

8 of 28

20.Learned counsel vehemently argued that impleadment of the

complainant/victim in an appeal filed by the accused under Section 374

of the CrPC is not a sine qua non for the complainant/victim to file an

Appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC in the High Court.

21.Learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio laid down in Jagjeet

Singh v Ashish Mishra alias Monu, (2022) 9 SCC 321, wherein this

Court held:

‘23. 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. He/She has a legally vested

right to he heard at every step post the occurrence of an

offence. Such a “victim” has unbridled participatory rights

from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the

proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to

clarify that “victim” and “complainant/informant” are two

distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always

necessary that the complainant/informant is also a “victim”,

for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an “informant”,

and similarly, a “victim” need not be the complainant or

informant of a felony.’

22.Learned counsel submitted that the proviso to Section 372 of the

CrPC is an enabling and a standalone provision meant to provide special

rights to the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal against ‘any order’

passed by the Court acquitting the accused and the said proviso does

9 of 28

not impose any restriction upon the victim to prefer the appeal only

against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of First Instance/Trial

Court and not against an order of acquittal passed by the First Appellate

Court.

23.Learned counsel emphasised the point that the Appellant could not

have approached the High Court to invoke its revisional jurisdiction under

Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, since sub-section (3) of Section 401

of the CrPC categorically states that ‘Nothing in this section shall be

deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into

one conviction.’

24.Learned counsel also invited our attention to this Court’s decision

in Mallikarjun Kodagali v State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, which

held that a victim, as defined in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, would be

entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily

lies against the order of conviction and it is not necessary to consider the

effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the proviso to Section

372 of the CrPC is concerned. It was prayed that the appeal be allowed.

10 of 28

RESPONDENT NO.1’S SUBMISSIONS:

25.Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 persuasively

contended that an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC is guided and

controlled by Section 374 of the CrPC, which is evident from the words

‘such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies

against the order of conviction of such Court’ used in the proviso to

Section 372 of the CrPC. It was submitted that Section 374 of the CrPC

does not provide for filing an appeal against an order passed in appeal

by the First Appellate Court.

26.The learned counsel also submitted that Respondent No.2/State of

Rajasthan has neither preferred an appeal nor a revision against the

judgment of acquittal dated 16.02.2022 passed by the First Appellate

Court.

27.Learned counsel further argued that the complaint dated

06.02.2016 was made by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, an investigator

employed by M/s Solution, who was neither an employee nor an

authorised agent of the Appellant and therefore, he cannot be said to

have acted as an agent of the Appellant apropos the Appellant being

11 of 28

covered under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. As such, the Appellant

has/had no locus or authority to initiate any proceedings challenging the

correctness of Judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by the First Appellate

Court.

28.Learned counsel advanced that the Appellant’s application seeking

impleadment in Criminal Appeal No.1657/2019 was practically rejected

by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 10.02.2022, but allowed the

Appellant to assist the prosecution. Pointing out that such order was not

challenged before the High Court by the Appellant, it was prayed that the

instant appeal deserved to be dismissed.

RESPONDENT NO.2-STATE’S SUBMISSIONS:

29.The sole contention taken by the learned counsel for the State of

Rajasthan is that the Appellant should have sought Special Leave to

Appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC before the High Court, if

maintainable, otherwise it ought to have filed a Revision Petition under

Sections 397 or 401 of the CrPC. Thus, the State has maintained the

position adopted by it before the High Court.

12 of 28

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:

30.The matter before us lies in a very limited compass. As noted in the

introductory portion of this Judgment, the only issue is whether the

Appellant comes under the definition of ‘victim’ in terms of Section 2(wa)

read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or whether the

provisions of Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and

circumstances. For convenience, Sections 2(wa), 372, 374 and 378 of

the CrPC are reproduced herein below:

‘2. Definitions.— In this Code, unless the context otherwise

requires,—

…

(wa) “victim” means 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 and the expression

"victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir;

xxx

372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.—

No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal

Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law

for the time being in force:

Provided 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.

xxx

374. Appeals from convictions.—

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its

extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the

Supreme Court.

13 of 28

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge

or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any

other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more

than seven years has been passed against him or against

any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to

the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any

person,—

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or

Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of

the second class, or

(b) sentenced under Section 325, or

(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a

sentence has been passed under Section 360 by any

Magistrate,

may appeal to the Court of Session.

(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence

passed under Section 376, Section 376-A, Section 376-AB,

Section 376-B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-

DA, Section 376-DB or Section 376-E of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860), the appeal shall be disposed of within a

period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.

xxx

378. Appeal in case of acquittal.—

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), and

subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),—

(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public

Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from

an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a

cognizable and non-bailable offence;

(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public

Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an

original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court

other than a High Court not being an order under clause (a)]

or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in

revision.

(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which

the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police

Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency

empowered to make investigation into an offence under any

14 of 28

Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government

may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), also direct

the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal—

(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed

by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable

offence;

(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an

acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court not

being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal

passed by the Court of Session in revision.

(3) No appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-

section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the

High Court.

(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case

instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an

application made to it by the complainant in this behalf,

grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the

complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.

(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of

special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be

entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months,

where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in

every other case, computed from the date of that order of

acquittal.

(6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for

the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal

is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie

under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2).’

31.The undisputed factual matrix would reveal that it was the Appellant

which had given Power-of-Attorney to M/s Solution through its Proprietor

Ajay Singh for protecting its IPR by undertaking survey(s), investigating

and acting against any person found to be engaged in violating/infringing

the Appellant’s IPR, including but not limited to, under the Trade Marks

Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act.

15 of 28

32.In turn, M/s Solution appointed Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh to carry

out the task assigned by the Appellant. Thus, whatever action was taken

either by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh or by M/s Solution related to the

infringement of IPR with regard to the Appellant’s products, was clearly

for and on behalf of the Appellant. It was ultimately the interest of the

Appellant which was sought to be served through the engagement of M/s

Solution, which in turn, engaged Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh as its Field

Operative. In the present case, it is clear that the allegation directly

relates to wrongdoings on the part of Respondent No.1 in displaying,

keeping in his shop and being in possession of materials/products which

are similar to those manufactured/sold/distributed by the Appellant which

also bore its mark on the outside packaging i.e., the bucket in which it

was contained, to be specific ‘paints’ which indicated/mis-indicated that

such products were of the Appellant.

33.Further, before the First Appellate Court, the Appellant had filed an

application/petition for impleadment, whereupon order dated 10.02.2022

was passed to the following effect:

‘Ld. Advocates for the parties are present. The arguments

have already been made by the respondent Shri Suresh

Sharma on the file. Similarly, in the criminal appeal, an

16 of 28

application has been submitted on behalf of the complainant

to the effect that he should also be given an opportunity of

hearing.

Heard on the application.

The Appellant has no objection to the application and

requested that the Complainant's Ld. Advocate can assist the

Additional Public Prosecutor and his arguments should also

be heard. In view of this consent, the complainant was heard

on appeal.

In the file related to the present case, the Inspector stated

that in the original case, the trial court had after concluding

the trial, sentenced and convicted the accused. The appeal

related to the conviction is also pending before this court.

Therefore, the appeal against conviction and complainant's

submissions should be heard together and decided. The

arguments on side of Complaint has been heard before. The

files related to the appeal were taken up for hearing today,

and the advocate for the complainant, Mr. Naresh Sain, was

given an opportunity to hear. The arguments between the

appellant and the complainant were heard. Written

arguments were also presented by the appellant. If the

complainant wishes, he can obtain a copy of the written

argument from the court, and the advocate for the appellant

also assured that he will provide the copy of the written

argument to the advocate. If the complainant wants to

present written argument, he can present written argument till

11 am on 15.02.2022. ’

(sic)

(emphasis supplied)

34.Thus, though no formal order on the impleadment

application/petition may have been passed but the Appellant’s arguments

were heard by the First Appellate Court, as the complainant. Neither the

State nor Respondent No.1 objected to the application filed by the

17 of 28

Appellant. In fact, the order supra also records that Respondent No.1

had agreed that the Appellant be also heard.

35.Pausing here, the observation in the Impugned Judgment that the

impleadment application/petition was ‘not allowed’ by the First Appellate

Court is erroneous and in effect, the learned Single Judge, without

saying so, has impliedly conveyed that a negative order was passed on

the plea for impleadment. This would be an incorrect appreciation of the

true import of the order passed by the First Appellate Court dated

10.02.2022, which clearly states that the ‘complainant’ was heard on the

appeal, though it has also been mentioned that it was in the background

of the consent given. Indubitably, as noted in the Impugned Judgment

itself in the very same sentence, ‘but with the consent of respondent no.1

accused, present appellant was permitted to assist public prosecutor to

advance arguments.’ Albeit, nothing much turns on this.

36.Section 2(wa) of the CrPC defines ‘victim’ in plain and simple

language 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…’. It is clear that Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully

18 of 28

accorded an expansive understanding to the term ‘victim’ and not a

narrow or restricted meaning.

37.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/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured

by the Appellant. 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.

38.Similarly, Section 372 of the CrPC stipulates that no appeal shall lie

from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by

the CrPC by any other law for the time being in force. Section 372 of the

CrPC falls under Chapter XXIX which relates to Appeals. Chapter XXIX

also includes Section 378, beginning from Section 372, concluding with

Section 394, and deals with all contingencies relating to Appeals under

the CrPC.

39.It would be worthwhile to first consider the scope of Section 378 of

the CrPC before reverting to Section 372 of the CrPC.

19 of 28

40.Section 378 of the CrPC relates to appeal in case of acquittal and

sub-section (3) thereof stipulates that there shall be no appeal to the

High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), which otherwise

stipulates the condition necessary for maintaining an appeal under sub-

section (1) or sub-section (2), except with the leave of the High Court.

41.Thus, on an isolated reading of Section 378(3) of the CrPC, the first

impression is that leave of the High Court for maintaining an appeal to

that Court is a mandatory condition. However, examining the issue in the

facts of the present case, it has to be first considered as to whether

Section 372 of the CrPC would directly cover the situation, or be

circumscribed by the provisions of Section 378 of the CrPC.

42.We find that the High Court has taken an extreme direction while

considering this issue by interpreting the term ‘complainant’ to be only

the person who actually filed the written complaint, namely Mr. Pankaj

Kumar Singh. On this premise, it has gone on to hold that the Appellant

cannot be a ‘victim’ as it is only the complainant who can maintain such

appeal and further, that even the complainant-Pankaj Kumar Singh could

20 of 28

maintain the appeal only after seeking the leave of the High Court in view

of the provisions of Section 378(3) of the CrPC. The High Court also held

that ‘This is a case instituted upon a police report and only in cases

instituted upon private complaint, leave to appeal under Section 378(4)

of Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Therefore, leave to appeal against order of

acquittal in appeal is also not maintainable in the instant case.’

43.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.

44.At the cost of repetition, we have indicated above as to who would

be covered as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. There is no

doubt that the Appellant is the ‘victim’ herein. As explained in Jagjeet

21 of 28

Singh (supra), it is not necessary for the ‘victim’ to also be the

‘complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case.

45.Furthermore, another aspect that needs to be considered is as to

whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC would

be restricted only to mean an appeal to the First Appellate Court or

include even an appeal to the Second Appellate Court/High Court, which

happens to be the case herein.

46.We find that this is not a very complicated issue of law. We do not

propose to complicate it! 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.’

(emphasis supplied)

22 of 28

47.From the aforesaid elucidation, it is clear that the right to appeal

accrues on the ‘victim’ from the instance of a Court acquitting the

accused. 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. We can see the situation through another lens also. In the facts at

hand, acquittal was by the First Appellate Court and not by the Trial

Court. Therefore, since, in the present case, for the first time, the

acquittal comes in at the stage of the First Appellate Court (being a

Sessions 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.

However, for that purpose, the High Court could also have been the First

Appellate Court, if the Trial Court, being a Court of Sessions, had

acquitted the accused. Thus, the reasoning of the High Court that if the

Appellant was allowed to maintain the appeal, it would amount to an

appeal as envisaged under Section 378 of the CrPC, is factually and

legally erroneous, which proposition we negate.

48.Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant on

Mallikarjun Kodagali (supra), wherein this Court discussed the

substantive right of the victim as envisaged in the proviso to Section 372

23 of 28

of the CrPC, the conclusive paragraphs wherefrom are reproduced

below:

‘73. In our opinion, the proviso to Section 372 CrPC must

also be given a meaning that is realistic, liberal, progressive

and beneficial to the victim of an offence. There is a historical

reason for this, beginning with the Declaration of Basic

Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of

Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United

Nations in the 96th Plenary Session on 29-11-1985. The

Declaration is sometimes referred to as the   Magna Carta   of

the rights of victims. One of the significant declarations made

was in relation to access to justice for the victim of an offence

through the justice delivery mechanisms, both formal and

informal. In the Declaration it was stated as follows:

“4. Victims should be treated with compassion and

respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to

the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as

provided for by national legislation, for the harm that

they have suffered.

5. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be

established and strengthened where necessary to

enable victims to obtain redress through formal or

informal procedures that are expeditious, fair,

inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be

informed of their rights in seeking redress through

such mechanisms.

6.The responsiveness of judicial and administrative

processes to the needs of victims should be

facilitated by:

Informing victims of their role and the scope, timing

and progress of the proceedings and of the

disposition of their cases, especially where serious

crimes are involved and where they have requested

such information;

Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be

presented and considered at appropriate stages of

the proceedings where their personal interests are

affected, without prejudice to the accused and

24 of 28

consistent with the relevant national criminal justice

system;

Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the

legal process;

Taking measures to minimise inconvenience to

victims, protect their privacy, when necessary, and

ensure their safety, as well as that of their families

and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and

retaliation;

Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of

cases and the execution of orders or decrees

granting awards to victims.

7. Informal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes,

including mediation, arbitration and customary justice

or indigenous practices, should be utilised, where

appropriate, to facilitate conciliation and redress for

victims.”

xxx

75. Under the circumstances, on the basis of the plain

language of the law and also as interpreted by several High

Courts and in addition the resolution of the General Assembly

of the United Nations, it is quite clear to us that a victim as

defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC would be entitled to file an

appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies

against the order of conviction. It must follow from this that

the appeal filed by Kodagali before the High Court was

maintainable and ought to have been considered on its own

merits.

76. As far as the question of the grant of special leave is

concerned, once again, we need not be overwhelmed by

submissions made at the Bar. The language of the proviso to

Section 372 CrPC is quite clear, particularly when it is

contrasted with the language of Section 378(4) CrPC. The

text of this provision is quite clear and it is confined to an

order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a

complaint. The word “complaint” has been defined in Section

2(d) CrPC and refers to any allegation made orally or in

writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing to do with the

lodging or the registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at

all necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the

25 of 28

complainant as far as the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is

concerned.’

(emphasis supplied)

49. The law on the issue has been enunciated by the 3-Judge Bench,

by a majority of 2:1, in Mallikarjun Kodagali (supra), which squarely

applies to the instant matter. The exposition on the term ‘victim’ by 3

learned Judges in Paragraph 23 of Jagjeet Singh (supra) has already

been taken note of by us hereinabove, with which we respectfully concur.

50. We may also indicate that the view taken by us that the right of a

victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of

the CrPC, which was inserted vide Section 29 of Act V of 2009, with

effect from 31.12.2009, is not restricted by any other provision of the

CrPC. It serves the salutary purpose of safeguarding the rights of the

victim. Upon detailed discussion, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Mahabir v State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184 observed:

‘53. Therefore, by the aforesaid provision a right has been

created in favour of   the victim, which was not existing earlier

in the Code, i.e., that a 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. 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

26 of 28

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. It

not only extends to challenge the order of acquittal, but such

appeal can also be filed by the victim if the accused is

convicted for a lessor offence or if the inadequate

compensation has been imposed.

54. Thus, it is clear as per the golden rule of interpretation,

that the ‘proviso’ is a substantive enactment, and is not

merely excepting something out of or qualifying what was

excepting or goes before. Therefore, by adding the ‘proviso’

in Section 372 of CrPC by this amendment, a right has been

created in favour of the victim.’

(emphasis supplied)

51.Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, we find the Impugned

Judgment to be unsustainable. The same is set aside.

52.The Appellant’s Appeal [S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2354/2022]

is held maintainable and is restored to its original file and number before

the High Court. Since the incident in question is of the year 2016, the

Registrar (Judicial), Jaipur Bench of the High Court is directed to place

the matter before the learned Chief Justice, who in turn, is requested to

allocate the same to a learned Single Bench to hear the matter on merits

expeditiously, as per the Board position.

53.Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this Judgment

forthwith to the Registrar (Judicial), Jaipur Bench of the High Court.

27 of 28

54. Needless to state, 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.

55.The Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to

costs.

…………………..................…..J.

[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

.…………………..................…..J.

[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]

NEW DELHI

JULY 14, 2025

28 of 28