Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.2(wa) r/w proviso to s.372; s.378 – Counterfeit products were sold in the appellant-company’s name by Respondent No.1, complaint filed through its authorized representative – FIR filed u/ss.420/120B, IPC and s.63/65, Copyright Act – Respondent No.1 was convicted by Trial Court however, was acquitted by First Appellate Court – Appellant filed appeal u/proviso to s.372 – Dismissed by High Court holding that the appellant’s appeal as a victim under the proviso to s.372 was not maintainable as the appellant was neither considered as complainant nor as victim before the Trial Court – Sustainability: Held: Not sustainable – Appellant is the ‘victim’ – Ultimately, it is the appellant who suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold – It would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that they belonged to the Appellant’s brand – High Court took an extreme direction while interpreting the term ‘complainant’ to be only the person who actually filed the written complaint – It is not necessary for the ‘victim’ to also be the ‘complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case – Thus, High Court erred in holding that the Appellant cannot be a ‘victim’ as it is only the complainant who can maintain such appeal and further, that even the complainant could maintain the appeal only after seeking the leave of the High Court in view of the provisions of s.378(3), CrPC – Right of a victim to prefer an appeal under the proviso to s.372 is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC – s.372 is a self-contained, stand-alone and independent Section – It is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX of the CrPC – The proviso to s.372 shall not be read conjointly with any other provision in the CrPC, much less s.378 – Finding of the High Court that the Appellant could not have maintained the appeal before it negates the proviso to s.372 – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 37, 42-44, 50, 51]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.372 – Appeal under, if restricted only to mean an appeal to the First Appellate Court or includes even an appeal to the Second Appellate Court/High Court:
Held: The language of the proviso to s.372 is unambiguous – Right to appeal accrues on the ‘victim’ from the instance of a Court acquitting the accused – Proviso to s.372 is agnostic to the factum of such acquittal being by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court – Also, in the present case, 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 u/s.378, CrPC, is factually and legally erroneous. [Paras 46, 47]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.