MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. S. R. Divetia, Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule for the State. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-original accused has approached this Court for releasing him on bail. ( 3 ) THE present petitioner was arrested for the offence punishable under Sec. 8 and Sec. 20 (a) (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in pursuance of the C. R. No. 43 of 1990 of Savarkundla Town Police station. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the F. I. R. , the petitioner cultivated cannabis plants of Ganja in the field of sugar-cane in the Vadi belonging to the petitioners ownership. According to the complaint, the Panchnama was made of the field and the plantations of Ganja weighing 60 Kgs. were taken possession of. The present petitioner field an application before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions judge, Bhavnagar for releasing him on bail. The number was given by the Court as Criminal Misc. Application No. 518 of 1990. After hearing both the sides, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, dismissed the bail application by his order dated 28-8-1990. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that looking to the police papers, the accused planted the plants of cannabis on large scale and also taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court observed that it cannot be said that there are reasons to believe that the accused has not committed offence under the Act. Following the judgment of this High court reported in (Abdul Hamidkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat), [1987 (2)] 28 (2) glr 942, the lower Court rejected the bail application. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the lower Court on 28-8-1990, the present petitioner has approached this Court for releasing him on bail. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Sec. 37 (1) provides that : "no person accused of any offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the conditions provided therein are satisfied. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Sec. 37 (1) provides that : "no person accused of any offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the conditions provided therein are satisfied. " ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is contemplated by this Section that only in cases where minimum punishment provided is 5 years or more, then and then Sec. 37 (1) (b) will apply and in the present case, looking to the provisions of Sec. 20 (a) (i), the maximum punishment provided is 5 years and, therefore, when minimum prescribed is not 5 years, Sec. 37 will not apply. ( 7 ) I do not agree with the submission made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The phrase used in Sec. 37 is "any offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more". In my opinion, the work "punishable" has reference to the maximum punishment to which the offender is liable to be punished. According to Blacks Law Dictionary, (4th Edn. , page 1398), "punishable" means "deserving of or capable or liable to punishment; capable of being punished by law or right". Even according to Websters Third New International Dictionary, (Vol. II, page 1843), "punishable" has been given the same meaning as mentioned above. In Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. 1933 Edn. page 1603), "punishable" means liable to punishment; capable of being;punished. The reference, to the word "punishable" is clearly to the maximum punishment awardable in a given case to a person found guilty of an offence. Thus, looking to Sec. 37 the said section will be attracted to the present offence. We cannot add any word to the Section which is not provided by the Parliament. I, therefore, do not agree with the submission made by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that Sec. 37 will apply to offences which provide minimum sentence of 5 years or more and reject the same. ( 8 ) THE second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is nothing to show from the police papers that the accused mainly planted the plants of cannabis. ( 8 ) THE second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is nothing to show from the police papers that the accused mainly planted the plants of cannabis. When the accused was in possession of the field and was cultivating the field and when such large quantity of cannabis plants were found, it is to be presumed that it was within the knowledge of the accused that the cannabis plants are planted by the accused. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid circumstances, the bail application preferred by the present petitioner is dismissed. Rule is discharged. .