The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a complainant under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby securing an independent right to file an appeal before the Sessions Court without needing special leave. This decision reinforces the evolving recognition of complainants as aggrieved parties in statutory criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), filed a criminal complaint against M/s Krishna Beverages and its proprietor for selling packaged drinking water without ISI mark certification, violating Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 33 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence and granting benefit of doubt.
Procedural History
- 2010: Criminal Complaint No. 678/2010 filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur
- 30.01.2013: Trial Court acquitted respondents for lack of conclusive proof
- 2016: Appellant filed acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC before the High Court
- 2025: Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors. held that complainants are victims under CrPC
Relief Sought
The appellant sought permission to withdraw the pending acquittal appeal and instead file a fresh appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC, arguing that as a victim, it has an independent right to appeal directly to the Sessions Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a complainant under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, thereby entitling it to file an appeal under Section 372 CrPC without requiring special leave under Section 378.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors. (2025 INSC 804), which held that a complainant in a criminal case is a 'victim' within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC. It argued that since the BIS is a statutory body enforcing public interest standards, its role as complainant is analogous to that of a victim aggrieved by violation of consumer safety norms. It further contended that Section 372 CrPC grants an unqualified right of appeal to victims, and denying it would undermine statutory enforcement.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not oppose the withdrawal request. Their counsel conceded that the Supreme Court’s precedent was binding and that no prejudice would arise from permitting the appellant to pursue an appeal under Section 372 CrPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC, which includes 'a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the offence'. It noted that the Bureau of Indian Standards Act is a public welfare statute designed to protect consumers from substandard goods. The Court held that when a statutory body like BIS, mandated to enforce product safety standards, files a complaint against non-compliance, it suffers a direct injury to its statutory mandate and public trust.
"The complainant, being the statutory authority entrusted with the duty of ensuring compliance with quality standards, suffers a legal injury when its regulatory authority is flouted. This qualifies it as a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC."
The Court further observed that the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial had explicitly recognized that complainants in statutory offences are entitled to the same appellate rights as victims. It distinguished earlier rulings that limited victim status to natural persons, emphasizing that statutory bodies acting in public interest must not be denied recourse under Section 372 CrPC.
The Court also noted that Section 372 CrPC was introduced to empower victims and ensure timely redressal, and denying its application to BIS would defeat the legislative intent behind both the BIS Act and the CrPC amendments.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that the Bureau of Indian Standards qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC and is entitled to file an appeal under Section 372 CrPC. The appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Sessions Court within 60 days, without limitation being a bar.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Complainants Under Statutory Laws Are Victims
- Practitioners must now treat statutory bodies like BIS, FSSAI, or EPFO as eligible victims under Section 2(wa) CrPC when enforcing regulatory offences
- Appeals under Section 372 CrPC can be filed directly by such bodies without invoking Section 378
- This removes the need for special leave applications, expediting enforcement
Section 372 CrPC Overrides Procedural Limitations
- Courts must not dismiss appeals under Section 372 CrPC on technical grounds of delay if filed within the liberty period granted
- The judgment creates a precedent for relaxing limitation in cases where appellate rights are statutorily recognized
- Practitioners should cite Celestium Financial and this judgment to argue for equitable treatment of complainants in regulatory prosecutions
Enforcement of Public Welfare Statutes Is Strengthened
- Regulatory agencies can now pursue appeals more aggressively without procedural hurdles
- This decision signals judicial support for proactive enforcement of consumer protection and quality control laws
- Future litigation under RERA, RCI, or Food Safety laws may similarly invoke this principle
