Judgment Panigrahi, J.: 1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to admit the petitioner to bail as he was arrested in connection with Baranagar P. S. Case No. 13 of 2000 registered under Section 20(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.4.2000 at about 11.30 hours while the petitioner was standing near main gate of B. O. P., Haridashpur on Jessore Road, he was intercepted by Border Security Personnel and, subsequently, on search 2 Kg. of Ganja from his rickshaw van was recovered which was in his possession. Therefore, a case under Section 20(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act was registered and he was remanded to judicial custody. Since then he made several attempts to secure an order of release from the Court on bail but all his attempts were not fructified. 2. There is no offence under this Act, which carries punishment for a term of imprisonment for five years. Therefore, the expression 'five years or more' used in Section 37(i)(b) of the Act cannot have any other interpretation than that the offence should be punishable with minimum sentence of five years. In some contingency the provisions of the contravention of this Act relating to Ganja, the accused can be punished with rigorous imprisonment for five years. In such case, Section 37(i) (b) shall attract. The word punishable according to BLACK DICTIONARY' means deserving or capable or liable to punishment. Therefore, the word 'punishable' has clearly signified to the minimum punishment awardable in a given case to a person found guilty of an offence. In such situation, we cannot but hold that the prayer for bail application comes within the embargo of under Section 37(i) (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that even assuming that the accused was arrested under Section 20(i) (b), then also, the punishment being less than five years. Therefore, the embargo placed under Section 37 of the act is not applicable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in (1) 1999 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter page 246 in the case of Mongal Singh. 4. Therefore, the embargo placed under Section 37 of the act is not applicable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in (1) 1999 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter page 246 in the case of Mongal Singh. 4. In the case of (2) Narcotic Bureau v. Sambhu Sankar reported in 2001 AIR SCW 590, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even the case filed under Section 20(i) (b), the accused is not entitled to bail. In that view of the matter, the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Mongal Singh's case stood impliedly overruled. Mr. S. Moitra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that Section 37 of the Act where minimum or maximum punishment has not been prescribed is clearly applicable to this case that prohibits grant of bail to the accused. It simply speaks the sentence of imprisonment for a term of five years whereas under Section 20, the punishment has been prescribed for a term that may be extended to five years. Assuming that an•. accused is sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for a term of five years clearly embargo placed under Section 37 of the Act shall be applicable as a reason whereof he cannot claim bail. Although this Court in Mongal Singh's case granted bail on assuming that the maximum punishment under Section 20(i)(b) is upto five years rigorous' imprisonment, yet on a close reading of the provision of Section 37(b) we find that there is no such maximum limit fixed but minimum limit has been stated as five years. The language used in Section 37(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act clearly postulates that offences, which carry punishment for five years or more is covered by it. There is nothing in the language of the statute to infer that the sentence was minimum limit and not the maximum limit. The language is clear and unambiguous. We do not find any other scope to take a different view. In view of the clear language of Section 37(b), offence covered under Section 20 (b) (i) comes within the ambit of the former provision. Therefore, we are firm in our view that the person alleged to have committed an offence under Section 20(b) (i) should not be granted bail. In view of the clear language of Section 37(b), offence covered under Section 20 (b) (i) comes within the ambit of the former provision. Therefore, we are firm in our view that the person alleged to have committed an offence under Section 20(b) (i) should not be granted bail. Our view is also supported by judgment reported in (3) 1992 Criminal Law Journal page 493 in the case of Rajendra Panda v. State of Orissa. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. Basu, J.: I agree.