New Delhi: In an important decision, which will pave the way for the corporate sector to protect its interests under the criminal law related to the sale of fake/fake products, the Supreme Court has ruled that a aggrieved company deserves the criminal case in such cases to pursue a criminal case in such cases, which is to appeal or to appeal against appeal under criminal procedure code.A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra said that the word used in CRPC also includes a company that deserves it to pursue a case as a victim. This dismissed the order of the Rajasthan High Court, stating that a company could not appeal against a acquitted order. Facing an unusual situation where the person selling fake products in his name was acquitted in a criminal case, but was not allowed to file an appeal, the country’s leading paint company Asian Paints transferred the apex court through Singh Law Chambers. It presented that Section 2 (WA) of CRPC includes a ‘person’ company or an association or body of individuals in the word ‘person’ and it would fall within the shape of the word ‘victim’.Advocate Ajay Singh, who was present for the company, told SC that the matter was registered on a complaint filed by the representative of the company for its reputation and financial loss for violation of its copyright and loss/injury and the company should be allowed to file an appeal against the acquittal of the accused.On agreeing with Singh’s petition, the bench said that the company is being sold due to fake/fake products, as it has been manufactured by. The bench said, “The appellant (Asian Paints) would have suffered financial losses and iconic injuries if such products would be bought under the wrong confidence by the public that the same belonged to the brand of the appellant,” the bench said, stating how the company is suffering in the case.CRPC’s “Section 2 (V) has defined ‘victim’ as a person in plain and simple language, who has faced any loss or injury due to the Act or lapse, for which the accused person has been accused … ‘“We find that the High Court has taken an extreme direction considering the issue by interpreting the word ‘complainant’, only the person who had actually filed a written complaint, ie Pankaj Kumar Singh (Representative of the company). On this basis, on this basis, to claim that he can only complain, which he could not complain.”The apex court said that it is also not necessary for the victim to be ‘complainant’ or ‘informer’ in a given case.
