15 July 2025 Legal Updates

COMPANY WHICH SUFFERED LOSS DUE TO OFFENCE CAN FILE APPEAL AS 'VICTIM' AGAINST ACQUITTAL UNDER S.372 CRPC : SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 14, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Brief Facts

Asian Paints Limited discovered that counterfeit paint products bearing their trademark were being sold by Ram Babu at his shop "Ganpati Traders" in Rajasthan. The company had authorized investigators through a Power of Attorney to monitor trademark infringement. When the investigator filed a complaint, Ram Babu was prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code (cheating and conspiracy) and Copyright Act.

Procedural History

• Trial Court: Convicted Ram Babu and sentenced him to imprisonment and fines
• First Appellate Court (Sessions Court): Acquitted Ram Babu on appeal
• High Court: Dismissed Asian Paints' appeal, ruling it was not maintainable
• Supreme Court: Allowed Asian Paints' appeal

Key Legal Issue

Whether a company can be considered a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 against an acquittal order passed by the First Appellate Court?

Supreme Court's Decision

• Definition of "Victim": A company can be a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC if it has suffered loss or injury due to the accused's actions. The term "person" includes companies as per Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Right to Appeal: The proviso to Section 372 CrPC grants victims an independent right to appeal against acquittal orders, whether passed by trial courts or appellate courts. Hence Company would also have right to appeal.
• Independent Provision: Section 372 CrPC operates independently and is not restricted by Section 378 CrPC (which deals with appeals in acquittal cases by the state).
• Scope of Appeal: The victim's right to appeal extends to any court that acquits the accused, including First Appellate Courts.

Key Legal Principles

• Expansive Interpretation: The definition of "victim" should be given a broad, liberal interpretation to protect victims' rights.
• Victim vs. Complainant: A victim need not be the original complainant. These are distinct concepts in criminal law.
• Substantive Right: The proviso to Section 372 creates a substantive right for victims, not merely a procedural provision.
• Progressive Approach: Courts should adopt a progressive approach toward victims' rights, in line with UN principles on victims' rights.

Decision:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed that Asian Paints' appeal be heard on merits by the High Court.

COMPANY WHICH SUFFERED LOSS DUE TO OFFENCE CAN FILE APPEAL AS 'VICTIM' AGAINST ACQUITTAL UNDER S.372 CRPC: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 14, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Facts of the Case

A motor vehicle accident occurred on November 18, 1995, when a car collided with a truck. The deceased, who was an engineer with British Telecom earning salary in Pounds and residing in the UK with his family, died in the accident. His wife and two minor children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 1,30,00,000 for loss of dependency.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the truck driver negligent and awarded total compensation of Rs. 79,04,540, which included Rs. 78,33,540 for loss of dependency, Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium, and Rs. 15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Key Legal Issues

1. Multiplier Application After Remarriage

The insurance company argued that since the wife remarried in 2002, the multiplier should be reduced from 13 to 7 years (covering only 1995-2002). The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that while the wife's dependency may have ended upon remarriage, the minor children remained entitled to the full multiplier period.

2. Exchange Rate Determination

The Court upheld the High Court's determination of exchange rate at Rs. 52.3526 per Pound as against the Tribunal's Rs. 54.2601, based on the rates prevailing in 1995-1996.

3. Interest Rate on Compensation

The insurance company challenged the 9% interest rate as excessive. The Supreme Court upheld this rate, noting that:

• Courts awarded 12% interest in the 1980s, reduced to 9% in the 1990s
• Even current bank deposit rates are 7% or more
• The long delay in case disposal (filed in 1995, decided in 2017) justified the higher rate

4. Interest on Future Prospects

A significant issue was whether interest should be awarded on the "future prospects" component of compensation. The Court upheld interest on this amount, reasoning that:

Though awarded for future prospects, the money is received only after the multiplier period. Insurance companies could have settled claims provisionally upon intimation. Claimants are deprived of compensation during litigation, forcing them to seek livelihood elsewhere

Legal Principles Established

1. Compensation Calculation

The final compensation formula applied:

• Monthly income (Rs. 56,165) × 130% (future prospects) × 12 months × 13 years (multiplier) × 2/3 (after deducting 1/3 for personal expenses)
• Total: Rs. 75,93,508 + Rs. 70,000 (consortium, estate, funeral) = Rs. 76,63,508

2. Burden of Proof for Delay

The Court emphasized that legal delays cannot be attributed to parties without proper substantiation. Mere posting of cases for evidence doesn't establish party responsibility for delays.

3. Insurance Company's Duty

The Court observed that insurance companies should consider settling claims provisionally upon accident intimation, especially since compensation principles are well-established through judicial precedents.

PRESS FREEDOM TO BE PROTECTED, CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS CAN'T BE FILED BASED ON INTERPRETATIONS OF NEWS REPORTS: AP HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

Veladi Suguna Shekara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

(b) Court:

• High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

(c) Date of Decision:

• March 24, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Harinath N.

Facts

The petitioner, Veladi Suguna Shekara Rao, is the Editor of Sakshi Daily News Paper. A criminal case was registered against him under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for publishing an article titled "Ummadi Krishnajillalo Arachakam" on November 4, 2024. The complaint alleged that this was fake news intended to instigate violent riots and mislead the public.

Legal Issue

Whether the publication of a news article can constitute an offense under Section 353(2) of BNS (similar to Section 505(2) of IPC) when it doesn't promote enmity between different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups.

Petitioner's Arguments

• The article was published after extensive research and credible information
• Wild allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution
• The complaint fails to identify which specific groups were impacted
• The article doesn't promote enmity between different communities

Legal Precedents Cited

• S. Kushboo v. Kanniammal - Content not directed against any particular group
• Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh - Sections 153-A and 505 require involvement of at least two groups
• Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya - FIR quashed for lack of intention to cause disorder
• Kantamaneni Ravi Shankar v. State of Andhra Pradesh - Local precedent establishing similar principles

Court's Analysis

The court emphasized that for an offense under Section 353(2) BNS (equivalent to Section 505(2) IPC), there must be:

• Publication/circulation of statements containing rumors or alarming news
• Intent to create feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will
• Involvement of at least two different groups (religious, racial, linguistic, regional, caste, or community-based)

The court found that the complaint failed to establish the existence of two distinct groups between whom enmity was allegedly promoted.

Constitutional Considerations

The court invoked Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Speech and Expression, referencing Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras to emphasize that press freedom must be protected. The court noted that:

• Information from all angles should reach the masses
• Different dimensional views on issues cannot become subjects of criminal complaints
• If defamatory, civil remedies are available

Judgment

The court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR. The court held that:

• The article neither promoted enmity between groups nor incited commotion
• Registration of crime without proper legal basis violates fundamental rights under Article 21
• Press freedom must be protected to ensure democratic discourse

Key Legal Principles for CLAT

• Two-Group Requirement: Offenses under hate speech provisions require at least two identifiable groups
• Mens Rea: Intention to cause disorder or incite violence is essential
• Constitutional Balance: Courts must balance free speech with public order concerns
• Judicial Review: Courts can quash FIRs when legal requirements are not met
• Press Freedom: Constitutional protection of media against frivolous prosecutions