MP 1 APPA596_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 399 OF 2011 Firoz Gafar Khan @ Firoz Massa ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Dilip Mishra, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. S. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER 2011 P. C. : Heard. The applicant seeks to be released on bail pending his appeal against conviction for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) r/w. Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act (“said Act” for short), and for the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years. It is alleged that he was found in possession of one kg. Charas. 2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contends that the quantity of Charas was not a commercial quantity in view of the definition of 'commercial quantity' of the said Act, which shows that 'commercial quantity means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette'. In the Official Gazette, a table of small quantity and commercial quantity is shown wherein one kg Charas is shown as commercial quantity. However, the learned Counsel relying on the observations in Ajay Jayram Mewada Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 4242 of 2004) contends that this Court has held that one kg Charas is not a commercial quantity, and therefore, rigours of Section 37 of the said Act are not applicable. In view of that interpretation, one kg Charas is not a commercial quantity. Had it been one gram more, it would fall in the category of commercial MP 2 APPA596_11 quantity. Therefore, merely because it falls short by one gram and rigors of Section 37 are not applicable, the bail cannot be granted only on that ground. 3. The learned Counsel tried to point out that the provision of Section 50 has not been properly complied, and there are other discrepancies in the evidence and the applicant was on bail during the trial. After hearing him, I am not impressed that there was non compliance of any mandatory provision, particularly of Section 50. Taking into consideration the quantity of Charas found with the applicant, in my opinion, it is not a fit case to grant bail, particularly when he is convicted by the Special Court. 4. Therefore, the application for bail stands rejected. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant shall be allowed to get the private paper- book prepared, and if the paper book is submitted within a month, the appeal shall be immediately listed for Final Hearing after Diwali vacation. (J. H. BHATIA, J)