Summary
A paint manufacturer whose products were counterfeited appealed to the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against the first appellate court's acquittal of the accused; the High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the company was neither the complainant nor treated as a victim at trial. The Court held that the company is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC, that the proviso to Section 372 is a stand-alone provision not controlled by Section 378, and that the victim's right of appeal arises whenever a court acquits the accused, whether at trial or in first appeal; the appeal was restored for hearing on merits.
Issues
- Whether a company on whose behalf a power-of-attorney holder's field operative lodged the FIR about counterfeit goods is a 'victim' within Section 2(wa) CrPC entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372.
- Whether an appeal by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is controlled by Section 378 CrPC, so that leave of the High Court is required or only the complainant may appeal.
- Whether the victim's right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC extends to an acquittal recorded for the first time by the first appellate court under Section 374.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(wa), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973'Victim' means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused is charged; the definition is expansive. The company whose counterfeit products were seized suffers financial loss and reputational injury and is the victim, even though the written complaint was lodged by an investigator engaged through its power-of-attorney holder; a victim need not be the complainant or informant. (¶¶ 31, 32, 36, 37, 44)
- Section 372, proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The proviso gives the victim a right to appeal against any order acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser offence or awarding inadequate compensation, to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies from a conviction by that court. It is a self-contained, stand-alone and substantive provision, not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX and not to be read with Section 378; it is agnostic as to whether the acquittal was by the trial court or the first appellate court. (¶¶ 43, 45, 46, 47, 50)
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 378(3) requires leave of the High Court for State appeals against acquittal and Section 378(4) confines the complainant's special leave to cases instituted on complaint. The High Court's reasoning that permitting the company's appeal would amount to an appeal under Section 378 was held factually and legally erroneous; Section 378 does not circumscribe the proviso to Section 372. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 47)
- Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused's appeal against conviction to the Sessions Court lay under Section 374; the first appellate court's acquittal in that appeal was the order the victim sought to challenge, and the next court in the hierarchy for that purpose is the High Court. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16, 47)
Held
- Action taken by the power-of-attorney holder's firm and its field operative in detecting and reporting counterfeit products was for and on behalf of the company; it is the company which suffers financial loss and reputational injury from fake products sold under its brand, and it therefore falls within the expansive definition of 'victim' in Section 2(wa) CrPC. The victim need not be the complainant or informant. (¶¶ 31, 32, 36, 37, 44)
- The High Court's observation that the company's impleadment application was 'not allowed' by the first appellate court was an incorrect reading of that court's order, which records that the complainant was heard on the appeal with the consent of the accused; though nothing much turned on it. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35)
- The proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a self-contained, independent provision which operates on its own and is not to be read conjointly with any other provision of Chapter XXIX, least of all Section 378; holding that the company could not maintain the appeal would negate the proviso entirely. The High Court's interpretation confining 'complainant' to the person who physically lodged the complaint, and requiring leave under Section 378(3), was rejected. (¶¶ 42, 43)
- The victim's right to appeal accrues whenever a court acquits the accused; the proviso is agnostic as to whether the acquittal is by the trial court or the first appellate court. Where acquittal occurs for the first time in the Sessions Court's appeal, the victim's appeal lies to the next court in the hierarchy, the High Court, which could equally have been the first appellate court had a Sessions trial court acquitted. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47)
- The majority in Mallikarjun Kodagali, holding that a victim under Section 2(wa) may appeal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies from a conviction and that Section 378(4) is confined to cases instituted on complaint, squarely applies; the proviso, inserted by the 2009 amendment, is a substantive enactment creating a right in the victim which is not restricted by any other provision of the Code. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment set aside. The company's criminal appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC held maintainable and restored to the High Court's file, to be allocated by the Chief Justice to a Single Bench for expeditious hearing on merits, given that the incident dates to 2016; Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Registrar (Judicial), Jaipur Bench. Only the question of law was decided; Respondent No. 1 at liberty to raise all defences on merits. No order as to costs.