{"id":247247,"date":"2011-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-13T19:57:41","modified_gmt":"2015-06-13T14:27:41","slug":"state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCR.A\/990\/2009\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 990 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THRO' D.G. SHAH - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDERMOCARE\nLABORATORIES &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nJK SHAH, APP For Applicant(s) : 1 \nMRS SHILPA R SHAH for\nRespondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 03\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThis<br \/>\npetition has been filed by the State challenging the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 12.5.2008 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.126\/97. The case pertains<br \/>\nto offence punishable under the provisions of Drugs and <a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_1\">Cosmetics Act<\/a><br \/>\n1940 allegedly committed by the respondents herein. During the course<br \/>\nof trial, the respondents filed an application dated 13.3.08 and<br \/>\nstated that the trial is in progress, and five witnesses have been<br \/>\nexamined. The accused also stated several reasons due to which<br \/>\naccording to them, punishment below the minimum prescribed under the<br \/>\nrelevant provisions of the Drugs and <a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_1\">Cosmetics Act<\/a> was required to be<br \/>\nimposed in their case. It appears that the State opposed this<br \/>\napplication. No order was passed on the said application of the<br \/>\naccused. Once again on 3.4.08, they moved a fresh pursis and stated<br \/>\nthat the offences are of technical nature and the case is pending<br \/>\nsince 12 years resulting into great mental agony to them. The Court<br \/>\nmay, therefore, impose punishment even less than the minimum<br \/>\nprescribed. In reply to this application, the State filed a detailed<br \/>\nopposition at Ex.68 contending, inter alia, that offences alleged are<br \/>\nserious and in case of offence under <a href=\"\/doc\/1403255\/\" id=\"a_2\">section 27(c)<\/a> of the Drugs and<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_3\">Cosmetics Act<\/a>, minimum punishment prescribed is of three years and in<br \/>\ncase of offence under <a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_4\">section 27(d)<\/a>, minimum sentence prescribed is<br \/>\nof one year. There is evidence on record against the accused of<br \/>\nhaving committed such offences. Offences are of serious nature and<br \/>\ntherefore strict punishment may be imposed.  It was also contended<br \/>\nthat provisions of plea bargaining would not apply to such offences<br \/>\nunder the Drugs and <a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_5\">Cosmetics Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tBefore<br \/>\nthe learned Magistrate on 12.5.08, the accused pleaded guilty. Such<br \/>\nplea was unconditional as is apparent from the recording of pleas at<br \/>\nEx.141 and 143. Thereupon the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass<br \/>\nthe impugned order on 12.5.08 itself.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\tI<br \/>\nhave perused the order under challenge with the assistance of the<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing for both sides. The learned Magistrate in<br \/>\nthe said order has relied heavily on the provisions of plea<br \/>\nbargaining added in<a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_6\"> the Criminal Procedure Code<\/a> in the newly<br \/>\nintroduced Chapter XXI-A. Learned Magistrate recorded that the case<br \/>\nis pending since 12 years. Accused have admitted their guilt.<br \/>\nProvisions of plea bargaining therefore should be applied. Many cases<br \/>\nare pending. This case is likely to take further time before<br \/>\nconclusion. Therefore, also, benefit of plea bargaining should be<br \/>\ngranted to the accused. Considering all these aspects, placing heavy<br \/>\nreliance on the concept of plea bargaining, the learned Magistrate<br \/>\nproceeded to impose punishment of fine of Rs.5,000\/- and imprisonment<br \/>\ntill rising of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\tIn<br \/>\nmy view, the learned Magistrate committed serious error in imposing,<br \/>\nwhat the Supreme Court in different cases, described as &#8216;flea-bite&#8217;<br \/>\nof a punishment, that too relying on the principles of plea<br \/>\nbargaining which are not applicable in the present case. The offences<br \/>\nalleged against the accused were those punishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/1403255\/\" id=\"a_7\">section 27(d)<\/a><br \/>\nof the Drugs and <a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_8\">Cosmetics Act<\/a>, for which minimum punishment<br \/>\nprescribed is of one year, subject to of course, imposing below the<br \/>\nminimum, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the<br \/>\njudgment. It would, therefore, be necessary to find out whether there<br \/>\nwere adequate and special reasons recorded by the learned Judge in<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\tI<br \/>\nhave threadbare perused the judgment under consideration. Sole ground<br \/>\non which the learned Magistrate was prompted to impose punishment<br \/>\nwell below the minimum was that the accused had pleaded guilty before<br \/>\nthe trial was over and that therefore they should be given the<br \/>\nbenefit of plea bargaining. The entire logic was fallacious.<br \/>\nPrincipally, the accused had never applied for plea bargaining. Their<br \/>\napplications dated 13.3.08 and 3.4.08 never mentioned anything about<br \/>\ntheir preparedness to admit the guilt on condition or promise that<br \/>\nlesser punishment will be imposed. Such applications even if remotely<br \/>\nconsidered as ones of plea bargaining were stoutly opposed by the<br \/>\nState through written reply wherein it was contended that the offence<br \/>\ncannot be stated to be technical, there is sufficient proof on record<br \/>\nto drive home the charges and plea bargaining would not apply in such<br \/>\ncases. Despite such strong opposition from the State, learned<br \/>\nMagistrate unilaterally and in my view erroneously proceeded to apply<br \/>\nthe provisions of plea bargaining and imposed punishment which was<br \/>\nalmost non-existent. Sentence of imprisonment till rising of the<br \/>\nCourt and fine of Rs.5,000\/- by no stretch of imagination can be<br \/>\nstated to be any worthwhile punishment particularly when ordinarily<br \/>\noffence under <a href=\"\/doc\/1403255\/\" id=\"a_9\">section 27(d)<\/a> of the Drugs and <a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_10\">Cosmetics Act<\/a> would<br \/>\nattract minimum sentence of one year.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\tThe<br \/>\nconcept of plea bargaining cannot be applied arbitrarily. It is<br \/>\ngoverned by the statutory provisions contained in<a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_11\"> Chapter XXI-A of<br \/>\nthe Criminal Procedure Code<\/a>. A detailed procedure is prescribed in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_12\">section 265A<\/a> to <a href=\"\/doc\/1891720\/\" id=\"a_13\">265L<\/a>. No such procedure was followed in the present<br \/>\ncase. In fact, application of the accused was not for plea<br \/>\nbargaining. Even it was  treated to be one for plea bargaining, the<br \/>\nsame was opposed by the State. Under the circumstances, I am of the<br \/>\nopinion that the learned Judge committed serious error in importing<br \/>\nthe principles of plea bargaining and reducing the punishment well<br \/>\nbelow the minimum punishment prescribed under the law. Reasons<br \/>\nrecorded cannot be stated to be either adequate or special reasons to<br \/>\nimpose punishment below the minimum.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\tUnder<br \/>\nthe circumstances, order dated 12.5.08 passed by the learned Chief<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate is quashed. Instead of undertaking the<br \/>\nexercise as to what should be the appropriate punishment, in the<br \/>\nfacts of the case, I deem it proper that the entire proceedings be<br \/>\nremanded to the learned Judge for consideration after hearing the<br \/>\naccused. It is clarified that admission of guilt has achieved<br \/>\nfinality. The learned Magistrate shall, therefore, proceed from the<br \/>\nstage of giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused regarding<br \/>\nappropriate punishment, which would include producing any material<br \/>\nthey wish to with reference to quantum of punishment.  It would be<br \/>\nopen to the learned Magistrate to impose appropriate punishment upon<br \/>\ncompletion of this exercise. Nothing stated  hereinabove would limit<br \/>\nthe right of the accused to seek punishment below the minimum<br \/>\nprescribed  or for the Magistrate to consider such a request in<br \/>\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\tWith<br \/>\nthe above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.<br \/>\nRule is made absolute to the above extent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t\t\t\t\t\t(Akil<br \/>\nKureshi, J.) <\/p>\n<p>(vjn)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/990\/2009 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 990 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-13T14:27:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T14:27:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1073,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T14:27:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-13T14:27:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T14:27:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011"},"wordCount":1073,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011","name":"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T14:27:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dermocare-on-3-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Dermocare on 3 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247247","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}