Company is entitled to pursue criminal case against those selling fake product : SC | India News

NEW DELHI: In an important decision that would pave the way for the corporate sector to protect their interests under criminal law particularly relating to sale of counterfeit/fake products, Supreme Court has ruled that an aggrieved company is entitled to pursue criminal case against accused in such cases under Criminal Procedure Code to file appeal against acquittal or for enhancement of sentence.A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra said that the term victim used in CrPC includes a company also which entitled it to pursue a case against as a victim. It quashed Rajasthan High Court order which had said that a company could not file an appeal against an acquittal order. Facing an unusual situation where a person selling fake product on its name got acquitted in a criminal case but it was not allowed to file an appeal, leading paint company of country Asian Paints moved the apex court through Singh Law Chambers. It submitted that the term ‘person’ in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC also includes a ‘Company or Association or body of persons and it would fall within the contours of the term ‘victim’.Advocate Ajay Singh, appearing for the company, told SC that the case was registered on a complaint filed by company’s representative for infringement of its copyright and loss/injury in terms of its reputation and financial losses and the company should be allowed to file appeal against acquittal of accused.Agreeing with Singh’s plea, the bench said the company suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold as having been manufactured by it. “The appellant (Asian Paints) 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,”the bench said, while explaining how the company is a victim in the case.“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 accorded an expansive understanding to the term ‘victim’ and not a narrow or restricted meaning,” the bench said, while allowing the plea of Asian Paints.“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 Pankaj Kumar Singh(company’s representative). 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…,”the court said while setting aside HC order.The apex court said it is not necessary for the ‘victim to also be the ‘complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case.