IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-34442 of 2009 Date of Decision:15.1.2010 Jagroop Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution version, the police had asked the petitioner with respect to the whereabouts of the house of his driver Gurpal Singh. The petitioner accompanied the police to the house of said Gurpal Singh from where 80 kgs of poppy husk was recovered. Admittedly, there was no recovery from the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is stated to be in conscious possession of the poppy husk, the recovery was 80 kgs. As per the judgment rendered by this Court in the case titled as Sudhir v. State of Haryana 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 385, it is held that bar of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not applicable in case of recovery of 60 kgs of Ganja recovered from three persons, meaning thereby, that it would amount to 20 kgs. of Ganja from each and not 60 kgs which would amount to less than commercial quantity. In the present case, the recovery is 80 kgs of poppy husk from two persons, which would amount to 40 kgs each. Thus, it is non- commercial. Taking into account the allegations as well as the above fact, bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga. 15.1.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE