IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3848 OF 2009 Dattatraya Ranganath Unde ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ---- Shri Ashok I. Gade for Applicant Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. ---- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant was arrested on 30.6.2009 in connection with an offence which was registered with Pandharpur Police Station vide C.R. No.64 of 2009 for the offences punishable under section 20B of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. According to the prosecution an information received and they went to the particular place of offence and noticed that there were four persons who were suspiciously moving around and accordingly, they were informed that raiding party wanted to take their personal search. When these persons refused to give search, the raiding party shown their identity and thereafter they were permitted and search was taken in front of panchas and 550 gms Ganja was found valued at Rs.550/-. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of he Applicant firstly submitted that the quantity which was seized was 550 gms, which is less than commercial quantity i.e. 20 kg and even less than small quantity which is shown to be 1000 gms in the notification which has been issued pursuant to the provisions of section 2 (vii-a) and (xxii-a) of the N.D.P.S. Act. He further submitted that therefore, provisions of section 37 of the said Act are not attracted. He further submitted that even otherwise the mandatory provisions of section 42 have not been complied and lastly, it was contended that the first information report does not state from whose possession the said contraband was recovered. 5. There is much substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant. The schedule clearly discloses that small quantity is 1000 gms and commercial quantity is 20 kg. What is seized from the Applicant is less than the small quantity and, therefore, provisions of section 37 would not be attracted. FIR does not disclose who was in possession of the said contraband which was seized. However, the FIR also does not disclose that the raiding party had explained the right of the Applicant of being searched in presence of the gazetted officer or the Magistrate. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, in my view, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. 6. The Applicant be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station once in a month. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)