CORPORATE VICTIMS FINALLY GET LEGAL RECOGNITION BY HON’BLE SUPREME COURT AND HERE’S WHY THAT MATTERS.

In a judgment that could reshape corporate criminal enforcement in India, the Supreme Court has, for the first time so clearly, recognised that companies can be “victims” under criminal law, giving them the right to independently appeal an acquittal even when the State chooses not to.
The case, Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu & Anr., SLC (Crl.) No. 9888 of 2024, involved the sale of counterfeit paint products. While the trial court had convicted the accused, the Sessions Court reversed the decision. When Asian Paints challenged the acquittal, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the company had no standing, since it wasn’t personally injured and wasn’t the complainant. But the Hon’ble Apex Court, decisively disagreed.
The case of Asian Paints was represented by Singh Law Chambers LLP from the trial to the top court, whose submissions centred on reframing the company’s role not merely as an informant, but as a victim entitled to appellate recourse under the Code. The Supreme Court’s acceptance of this framing marks a pivotal evolution in the interpretation of victim rights in economic offences.
“A victim includes any person, natural or juristic, who suffers harm due to an offence. That includes companies,” the Court held.
This isn’t just a procedural ruling, it’s a foundational shift. Until now, India’s criminal justice system largely treated prosecution as the domain of the State, with victims, particularly companies, playing a limited or passive role once the police took over. That model may have made sense for traditional crimes, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of modern corporate harms, where financial loss, brand erosion, and supply chain fraud can cause serious injury without physical violence.
The ruling creates a legal pathway for brand owners to pursue criminal remedies directly, especially in cases involving counterfeiting, IP theft, and economic offences. It also eliminates the long-standing dependency on the public prosecutor’s discretion, a bottleneck that often left aggrieved companies without recourse when the State declined to appeal.
This is especially important in industries plagued by counterfeit and grey market products, FMCG, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and fashion, to name a few. For these sectors, the decision marks a shift from passive tolerance to active enforcement.
Globally, legal systems are evolving to reflect that corporations can suffer real and complex harm. With this ruling, India takes a crucial step in the same direction. It affirms that corporate harm is not abstract, it affects jobs, consumer safety, and economic integrity. The judgment will likely encourage companies to build stronger enforcement frameworks and treat legal risk not just as a compliance issue, but as a core brand and business concern. It could also lead to greater investment in forensic evidence, legal intelligence, and proactive litigation, now that corporates have the agency to act beyond the FIR stage.
It also opens up possibilities for reform. If the criminal law now recognises corporate victims, perhaps the next step is better defining victim rights in trial proceedings, enabling structured participation by corporate complainants, and formalising how their voices are heard.
The Supreme Court’s recognition of Asian Paints’ standing is not just a legal win, it’s a signal. It says that rights holders matter, that harm to brand and reputation is real, and that the courts are willing to interpret the law in step with the demands of a modern economy.
In doing so, the Court has rewritten the script for how corporate harm is treated in criminal proceedings. And for every company that’s seen a fake version of its product on a shop shelf, and been told there’s nothing more the law can do, this judgment now says yes, there is.

To access the Reportable Judgment click here