Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–Secs. 372 & 2(wa) [Corresponding Secs. 413 & 2(y) of BNSS, 2023]–Observation of the High Court that the appellant was neither the complainant nor the victim before the Trial Court, therefore, the appellant’s appeal as a victim under the proviso to Sec. 372 was unsustainable–Complaint was made by P, an investigator employed by M/s. Solution, who was neither an employee nor an authorised agent of the appellant–Appellant had given the power of attorney to M/s. Solution–Action taken by P was ultimately in the interest of the appellant–Before the First Appellate Court, appellant filed an impleadment application in which neither the State nor the respondent no. 2 objected to it–It is the appellant who had suffered due to counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the appellant–He would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the appellant’s brand–There is no doubt that the appellant is the victim in the case, covered under Sec. 2(wa).
