The Supreme Court held on Monday that companies also come under the definition of the victim under the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC), they will be entitled to a criminal complaint in an important decision that enables corporate institutions to carry forward criminal treatment for violating intellectual property rights.
The apex court separated on October 9, 2023, rejected the appeal filed by the order of the single judge of the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Asian paints Limited under Section 372 of CRPC on a dispute with a retailer, which was selling the company’s fake products, was not able to maintain.
While the trial court convicted the accused, the session court acquitted him. Although Asian Paints appealed against it, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition to maintain the petition.
In the July 14 judgment, a bench of Justice A Amanullah and PK Mishra said, Section 2 (V) of CRPC has defined the ‘victim’ in plain and simple language as a person, who has suffered any damage or injury due to the Act or omission. Restricted meaning. ,
The bench said, “We are forced to see that the appellant could not maintain the appeal from the search of the High Court, before it would be the amount to completely deny the provisions for Section 372 of the CRPC,” the bench said, referring to the section that relates to the right to appeal in criminal cases.
“In the current case, there can be no two opinions that, eventually, it is the appellant who is being sold/attempted to be sold to fake/fake products, attempted to be sold by the appellant. The appellant will have to face financial loss and iconic injury, if such products will be purchased under the relevant brand, which is related to the relevant brands.”
Ajay Singh, Advocate of Singh Law Chambers LLP, who represented Asian Paints, said that it is “not just a procedural rule, this is a fundamental change”.
The story continues below this advertisement
“So far, India’s Criminal Justice System considered a large -scale prosecution as a state domain, especially with the victims, companies, playing a limited or passive role, once the police handled the police. That model may understand for traditional crimes, but it does not reflect the reality of modern corporate horms, where the reality of modern corporate horms may not reflect, where financial damage, brands can cause serious injuries, the brands of the brand, and the brand’s dismissal chain, brands can cause a serious injury to the brand. Is.”
“The ruling brand makes a legal passage to carry out criminal remedies directly for the owners, especially in cases related to forgery, IP theft and economic crimes. It also eliminates long -standing dependence at the discretion of the public prosecutor, a hurdle that often leaves without aggressive companies when the state is rejected to appeal.
Singh said, “This is especially important in fake and gray market products, FMCG, pharmaceuticals, electronics and fashion -plated industries. For these areas, for these areas, the decision marks a change for active enforcement from inactive tolerance to active tolerance.”
(Tagstotransite) Criminal Procedure Code (T) CRPC (T) Asian Paints Limited IPR Case (T) Asian Paints Intellectual Property Rights (T) Supreme Court CRPC
