CRM-M No.17180 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRM-M No.17180 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2011 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner was found in possession of 3.220 Kgs. of methamphetamine. According to the learned counsel, the drug in question has been notified as a contraband substance vide notification dated 28.12.1999, as alleged by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even if the salt methamphetamine is CRM-M No.17180 of 2010 2 declared as a contraband substance as per the notification dated 28.12.1999, however, the fact remains that the same drug does not find place in Schedule 1, appended to 1985 Rules. He has further argued that at the most, offence can be said under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, however, in the absence of the drug in Schedule 1, provisions of Section 8 of the NDPS Act have no application. He has heavily placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Jagdish Singh Vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No.1845 of 2010 decided on 23.9.2010 and has stated that stay of grant of bail by the High Court of Bombay has been quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 28.11.2010 in SLP (Criminal) No.4135 of 2010 by observing that reference to the larger Bench would not mean cancellation/non-grant of bail, if the substance does not find place in Schedule 1 of the Rules. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has vehemently argued that even if Section 8 of the NDPS Act has no application as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, offence under Section 25-A of the NDPS Act is made out for which minimum sentence prescribed is ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, hence the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail. Mr. Sidhu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that offence under Section 25-A of the NDPS Act does not find place in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He further states that since Section 37 has no application over the offence under Section 25-A, hence there is no difficulty in releasing the petitioner on bail. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the CRM-M No.17180 of 2010 3 trial Court. Petition stands disposed of. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 02.02.2011 sk.