Judgment Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 2. A case was registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The allegation is that while S.H.O., Police Station Bhawani Mandi was on patrolling, then he recovered 8 kg. 500 gms. opium from the petitioner. The contraband so recovered from the petitioner was thereupon sent for FSL Report and therein it gave positive tests for the presence of chief constituents of coagulated juice of opium poppy having 2.47% (two point four seven per cent) morphine. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that contents of morphine is found 2.47%, thus on the total weight of the contraband so recovered, if morphine is taken note of, then it comes to less than the commercial quantity. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner made a reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau reported in (2008) 5 SCC 161 = 2008(4) RLW 3549 (SC) and also the case of Sami Ullaha vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau reported in 2008 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 705 = 2009(2) RLW 1823 (SC). It is submitted that the opium was recovered but looking to the fact that coagulated juice contains more than 0.2% of morphine, thus it does not fall within the definition of 'opium' as given under Section 2 (xv) of the Act. Referring to Schedule appended to the Act more specifically Item No. 77 pertaining to morphine, it is stated that commercial quantity therein is 250 Gms. whereas quantity of morphine herein comes to nearly 210 Gms. Only, thus petitioner is entitled for bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. It is stated that the contraband so recovered is 8 kg. & 500 Gms. and the FSL Report shows positive test for the presence of coagulated juice of opium poppy, thus under the ordinary circumstances, aforesaid material becomes opium as defined under Section 2 (xv) of the Act. However, the material contains more than 0.2% of morphine, thus it becomes opium derivative as defined under Section 2(xvi) of the Act. & 500 Gms. and the FSL Report shows positive test for the presence of coagulated juice of opium poppy, thus under the ordinary circumstances, aforesaid material becomes opium as defined under Section 2 (xv) of the Act. However, the material contains more than 0.2% of morphine, thus it becomes opium derivative as defined under Section 2(xvi) of the Act. Referring to Schedule Item No. 93, it is shown that therein small as well as commercial quantities of opium derivative are 5 gm. and 250 gm. respectively. Quantity of contraband so recovered herein is 8 kg. & 500 Gms. thus much more than the commercial quantity provided. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. In reference to the judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioner, it is stated that those judgments were given taking note of the facts of those cases and otherwise judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid issue exists in the case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2005) 7 SCC 550 . Clarifying the legal position, it is stated that quantity of each narcotic drug has been separately specified in the Schedule pursuant to the amendment made in the Act of 1985 so as to quantify the punishment in reference of each contraband like morphine, heroin, opium and opium derivative etc. Opium and opium derivative have been defined under Section 2(xv) and (xvi) of the Act of 1985 and every Narcotic Drug having been specified in the Schedule Table, then to judge as to whether recovery is of small or commercial quantity, the specific contraband so recovered is required to be looked in the Table for judging its quantity and not the substance of the morphine alone. It is stated that opium becomes opium derivative when content of morphine is found more than 0.2% but the definition of opium derivative does not show that to calculate its commercial quantity, only quantity of morphine would be a decisive factor. It is urged that the definition of manufactured drug has been given separately under Section 2 (xi) of the Act of 1985, which shows that even opium derivative is a manufactured drug and as per the definition of opium derivative, it can be a preparation containing morphine or diacetylmorphine. It is urged that the definition of manufactured drug has been given separately under Section 2 (xi) of the Act of 1985, which shows that even opium derivative is a manufactured drug and as per the definition of opium derivative, it can be a preparation containing morphine or diacetylmorphine. Hence, the matter cannot be judged by taking only extract of morphine in the total material so recovered, which is otherwise opium derivative in view of the Act of 1985. Therefore, request of learned Public Prosecutor is that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 6. There are two aspects of the matter, which are required to be considered. The first aspect is that if any narcotic drug recovered and sent for FSL Report, then as to whether quantity of morphine therein would be a decisive factor to determine as to whether the contraband so recovered is of commercial quantity or of small quantity. The second aspect is that even if the quantity of contraband is found to be less than commercial quantity, then also the facts of this case allow the petitioner to be released on bail. 7. First coming to the main aspect of the matter as to whether for determination of quantity of the contraband the substances of morphine therein is to be taken as the determining factor. For this purposes, reference of certain provisions of the Act of 1985 would be relevant. First definition of words "manufactured drug" is quoted hereunder:- "Manufactured drugs" means - (a) All coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and poppy straw concentrate; (b) Any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufacture drug; But does not include any narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare not to be a manufactured drug." 8. Apart from the aforesaid, definition of opium and opium derivative as provided under Section 2(xv) and 2 (xvi) of the Act of 1985 are also quoted hereunder for ready reference: - "(xv) "opium" means - (a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and (b) any mixture, with or without any natural material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine. (xvi) "opium derivative" means - (a) medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the processes necessary to adapt it for medicinal use in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Pharmacopoeia or any other pharmacopoeia notified in this behalf by the Central Government, whether in powder form or granulated or otherwise or mixed with natural materials; (b) prepared opium, that is, any product of opium by any series of operations designed to transform opium into an extract suitable for smoking and the dross or other residue remaining after opium is smoked; (c) phenanthrene, alkaloids, namely, morphine, codeine, thebaine and their salts; (d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dis-morphine or heroin and its salts; and (e) all preparation s containing more than 0.2 per cent of morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine." 9. Section 2(xxiiia) and Section 2(viia) provide definition of small and commercial quantity are quoted hereunder:- "Section 2 (xxiiia) - "small quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 2(viia) - "commercial quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette." 10. Section 2(viia) - "commercial quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette." 10. Section 21 of the Act of 1985 provides punishment for contraband in relation of manufactured drugs, which is also quoted hereunder:- "Section 21 - Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparation s - Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufacture drugs shall be punishable - (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees." 11. The aforesaid provisions have been quoted to crystallize the issue as has been focused above but before coming to the merit of the case, it is necessary to narrate the brief facts of the case. 12. The facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner stating that when Police Officers of Police Station, Bhawani Mandi were on patrolling and started for Bhawani Pachpahad at 2.15 P.M., then at around 2.45 P.M., a motorcycle coming from the opposite side turned to Jawahar Colony hurriedly, thus having suspicion, police jeep was turned towards the way motorcycle moved to chase and at 2.50 P.M., motorcycle was stopped. On checking, a packet was recovered, which was found to be opium, thus after recovery of the said packet, it was weighted for 8 kg. & 500 gm. After completing other formalities, two samples containing 50 gm. each were pre-pared and sent for FSL Report. On checking, a packet was recovered, which was found to be opium, thus after recovery of the said packet, it was weighted for 8 kg. & 500 gm. After completing other formalities, two samples containing 50 gm. each were pre-pared and sent for FSL Report. In the FSL Report following finding was given:- "RESULT OF EXAMINATION - On micro chemical examination :- The sample contained in the packed presence of chief constituents of coagulated juice of opium poppy having 2.47% (two point four seven per cent) morphine." 13. On these facts, learned counsel for petitioner has raised certain arguments and based on that two issues were framed for decision. Learned counsel for petitioner, while arguing the first aspect, contended that the total weight of the contraband so recovered may be 8 Kg. 500 gm. The substance of morphine therein found to be 2.47%. Thus, looking to the percentage of morphine, if calculations are made, then quantity of morphine so recovered from the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity. In those circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as the provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1985 does not apply in such a situation. It is submitted that very same aspect came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in a reported case of E. Micheal Raj (supra) and therein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that for determining small and commercial quantity, content o the offending drug in the mixture and not the weight of the mixture, as such is to be taken into consideration. For that purposes, in Para 15 of the judgment, an example has also been given and thereupon-final conclusions have been drawn in Para 19. Learned counsel for petitioner has mainly placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment and also a subsequent judgment in the case of Sami Ullaha (supra). Before dealing with the judgments as referred to above, it is first necessary to make reference of the certain provision, which have been quoted in the preceding Paras. Section 21 of the Act of 18985 provides that whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports interstate, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufacture drug shall be punishable. Section 21 of the Act of 18985 provides that whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports interstate, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufacture drug shall be punishable. The words "manufactured drug" and "preparation containing any manufacture drug" are of significance. The words "manufactured drug" have been defined under Section 2 of the Act of 1985 which includes "opium derivative", it becomes clear that opium would be coagulated juice of the opium poppy and any mixture with or without any natural mixture of coagulated juice of opium poppy but it does not include any preparation containing more than 0.2% of morphine. The definition of "opium derivative", includes all preparation containing more than o.2% of morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine. Again the words used "preparation containing" is of great significance for decision of this case. 14. Coming to the facts of this case, 8 kg. & 500 gm. opium has been recovered. In the FSL Report, it was found that the material contains coagu-lated juice of opium poppy. If we consider the aforesaid opinion, then having recovered coagulated juice of opium poppy, contraband becomes simply "opium" as defined under the Act of 1985, but the matter does not and here. The opinion further provides that contents of morphine therein is 2.47%, thus looking to the definition of "opium" and "opium derivative", the contraband so recovered falls in the definition of "opium derivative" an any preparation containing more than 0.2 of morphine becomes opium derivative and does not remain opium. Thus, the first conclusion on the facts is that the contra-band so recovered in this case is "opium derivative" and not the "opium". 15. The question now comes as to whether quantity of 8.5 kg. of opium derivative so recovered can be considered by taking weight of complete mixture or it is to be considered by extracting the quantity of morphine therein. For this purposes, not only the definition of "opium derivative" is relevant but further relevance is also of table appended to the Act. This provides as to what would be small and commercial quantity of each contraband. The table contains list of 239 different narcotic drugs. 16. For this purposes, not only the definition of "opium derivative" is relevant but further relevance is also of table appended to the Act. This provides as to what would be small and commercial quantity of each contraband. The table contains list of 239 different narcotic drugs. 16. So far as morphine is concern, the aforesaid narcotic drug appears at item No. 77 in the table whereas opium and opium derivatives appear at item Nos. 92 & 93, which are quoted hereunder for ready reference providing small and commercial quantity of those drugs:- Table S.No. Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (Internationalnon-proprietary name (INN) Othernon-proprie-tary name Chemical Name Small Quan-tity (in gm.) Comm-ercial Quan-tity (in gm./kg.) 77 Morphine Morphine 5 250 gm. 92 Opium And any preparation containing opium 25 2.5 Kg. 93 Opium Derivatives (other than diacety) morphine (heroin), morphine and those listed herein) 5 50 gm. 17. The aforesaid items have been quoted to show that each contraband has been shown separately to specify its small and commercial quantity. As per Table, the small and commercial quantity of the narcotic is to be deter-ined by taking note of the contraband so recovered and not the substance therein. To clarify this, it is necessary to give an illustration. Assuming the contraband so recovered is "heroin" then to judge as to whether quantity is small or commercial, item No. 56 of the table would be relevant wherein heroin is specifically provided as narcotic drug and the same is the position of "morphine". However, when the contraband so recovered is found to be opium derivative, then taking into consideration the definition of the opium derivative, item No. 93 of the table is required to be seen to determine small and commercial quantity. The definition of opium derivatives as provided under Section 2 (xvi) includes many narcotic drugs. As per sub-clause (a) medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the processes nece-ssary to adapt it for medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the processes necessary to adapt it for medicinal use is opium derivatives. Same way sub-clause (b) provides prepared opium, which is suitable for smoking after giving series of operation to transfer opium for that purposes. Sub-clause (c) specifically includes certain narcotic drugs, which are morphine, codeine, thabaine and their salts etc. Sub-clause (d) includes dis-orphine or heroin and its salts. Same way sub-clause (b) provides prepared opium, which is suitable for smoking after giving series of operation to transfer opium for that purposes. Sub-clause (c) specifically includes certain narcotic drugs, which are morphine, codeine, thabaine and their salts etc. Sub-clause (d) includes dis-orphine or heroin and its salts. Sub-clause (e) is relevant herein which provides:- "(e) all preparation s containing more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine." 18. Aforesaid clause is relevant here because what has been recovered from the petitioner is coagulated juice of opium poppy but in the FSL Report, it was found that preparation contains more than 0.2% of morphine, thus in view of the above fact, preparation falls under sub-clause (e). The words used "preparation containing" in sub-clause (e) is relevant because aforesaid clause does not indicate that substance of morphine itself would be an opium derivative but use of words "preparation containing" shows that if a narcotic is prepared which is obviously with certain mixture, then the aforesaid mixture, if contains more than 0.2% of morphine or heroin (diacetylmorphine), then it falls under clause (e) whereas if heroin simplicitor is recovered, then it will fall under clause (d). Once the conclusions are drawn, that contraband so recovered falls under clause (e), then argument of learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted to say that only the contents of morphine should be taken into consideration. If the intention of the Legislature would have been to take into consideration the quantity of morphine in the mixture of contraband, then definition of opium derivatives would have been given in that manner but perusal of the definition of opium derivatives shows that the morphine and diacetylmorphine (heroin) is shown separately in clause (c) and (d) and thereafter sub-clause (e) is being shown, thus on recovery of the coagulated juice of opium poppy, it is necessary to assess whether it contains morphine more than of 0.2% or not because if the coagulated juice containing less than 0.2% of morphine, it becomes "opium" whereas preparation contains more than 0.2% of morphine, it becomes "opium derivatives." Now, when sub-clause (e) of Section 2 (xvi) is invoked, then it is the preparation itself has to be taken into consideration for determination of small or commercial quantity and not the substance of morphine only. To further illustrate the issue, if we consider the facts of the case, then it is admitted that coagulated juice of opium poppy of 8.5 kg is being recovered and if 2.47% morphine is separated from it, then the remaining substance does not come out from the category of narcotic drugs because the coagulated juice of opium poppy remains opium, thus on separation of morphine substance from total contraband of 8.5 kg. almost 8 kg. & 290 gm. remains the coagulated juice of the opium poppy and in those circumstances, the coagulated juice of opium poppy so separated remains of the commercial quantity as commercial quantity of opium is 2.5 kg. however, the aforesaid separations of provided under the Act of 1985, thus total mixture has to be taken into consideration, but the aforesaid illustration has been given to show that mere extract of morphine in the total substance of contraband cannot be taken as decisive factor to determine small and commercial quantity of the contraband so recovered otherwise in the present case, the definition of "opium", "opium derivative" and "manufacture drug" becomes irrelevant rather redundant so as the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1985. 19. Now, coming to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj (supra). In Para 11 of the aforesaid judgment, reference of entry 56 and entry 239 has been given Entry 56 pertains to heroin and entry 239 is regarding any mixture of preparation with or without a natural material, of any of the above drugs. In the aforesaid case, 4.07 kg. of heroin was recovered, thus the drug recovered in the aforesaid case is heroin. On FSL Report, it was found containing more than 0.2% of heroin as 1.4 and 1.6 % actual substance of heroin found. Thus, taking note of the actual weight of heroin, decision was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. A bare look at the definition of "opium derivatives" shows that heroin falls under sub-clause (d) of Section 2(xvi) of the Act, 1985. Thus, taking note of the actual weight of heroin, decision was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. A bare look at the definition of "opium derivatives" shows that heroin falls under sub-clause (d) of Section 2(xvi) of the Act, 1985. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court further dealt with the issue in Paras 15 and 20 holding that for the purpose of invoking Section 21, the punishment is based on contents of the offending drug in the mixture and not the weight of the mixture as such and for that purposes, an illustration has been given in Para 15. It seems that the petitioner got confused only for that reason without going into the facts of the aforesaid case. It is no doubt that in Paras 15, 19 & 20, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that contents of the offending drug in the mixture and not the total weight of the mixture has to be taken into consideration for deciding small and commercial quantity, but then finding aforesaid was in reference to that case only because therein contraband so recovered was heroin itself and therefore, exact contents of the heroin was required to be taken into consideration to decide as to whether it is a small or commercial quantity. In Para 19 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found mixed with one or more natural substance shall be taken into consideration. In the given facts, since heroin was recovered, the judgment given with the aforesaid observations. Now, if we look at the facts of this case and also case where mixture so recovered is not heroin but a contraband as mentioned under sub-clause (a), (b) & (c) of the definition of opium derivatives, then it becomes clear that it is the preparation of the total mixture which is to take into consideration otherwise the definition of opium derivatives in reference to the aforesaid sub-clauses becomes redundant so as the definition of "manufactured drug" and the Table appended to the Act because morphine, heroin, and opium derivatives have shown separately in the Schedule Table appended to the Act of 1985. In fact, definition of opium derivatives would have been kept limited to include morphine and heroin only, then there should have been no difficulty in holding that it is a substance of morphine and heroin which alone is to be taken into consideration for determining small and commercial quantity but then definition does not end there rather sub-clause (e) provides any preparation containing more than 0.2% of morphine would also be opium derivative, thus it is the preparation of mixture with or without natural material or the drug has to be taken into consideration. As given illustration of this case, 8.5 kg. is the opium recovered and now as per the FSL report, it is found to be coagulated juice of opium poppy, which simplicitor becomes opium under the Act, but then substance conta8ins more than 0.2% morphine, it becomes opium derivative falling under sub-clause (e) of Section 2 (xvi) of the Act of 1985 and if the morphine is separated, then coagulated juice of opium poppy remains and becomes opium as defined, hence it can safely be held that only contents of morphine or heroin in narcotic drug cannot be held to be decisive to hold that the contraband contains small or commercial quantity, if it falls under sub-clause (a), (b) and (e) of Section 2 (xvi) defining opium derivative, the judgment in the case of E. Micheal Raj (supra) is required to be understood in the manner indicated above because there heroin was recovered and said contraband is separately shown under sub-clause (d) in the definition of "opium derivative". 20. Coming to the judgment in the case of Sami Ullaha (supra) then also in Para 3 what has been mentioned is seizure of contraband weighing 2 kgs. and said contraband was again heroin. Thus facts of the aforesaid case remain similar to that of E. Micheal Raj's case (supra). Though in the aforesaid judgment, Table appended to Act of 1985 was looked into in reference to narcotic drug morphine whereas heroin said to have been recovered and FSL Report on the second occasion gave positive finding for containing heroin. It seems that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's attention was not drawn by the party therein referring to item No. 56 where heroin is being shown separately as one of the narcotic drugs. In Para 15, the Court refused to go into the depth of the case. 21. It seems that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's attention was not drawn by the party therein referring to item No. 56 where heroin is being shown separately as one of the narcotic drugs. In Para 15, the Court refused to go into the depth of the case. 21. In substance, perusal of the facts of the aforesaid two cases shows that there are distinguishable facts and issues, however, learned counsel for petitioner put more emphasis on the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex court in the given facts. It is settled law that no judgment can make statutory provision as redundant unless held to be unconstitutional. Thus, it is necessary to clarify that the judgments aforesaid are given by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the given facts and accordingly observation made therein has to be understood on those facts itself and not by applying it universally, that too, in different set of facts. Each case has to be decided after taking note of the fact of that case itself and by applying the provisions of law thereupon. Thus, it can be safely held that as per Section 2(xvi) (e) of the Act of 1985, the preparation as such has to be taken into consideration for determining as to whether it is a small or commercial quantity other than the cases which fall sunder Clause (c) & (d) of Section 2 (xvi) of the Act of 1985. The aforesaid aspect is fortified further if we look at the definition of 'manufactured drugs' in reference to Section 21 of the Act of 1985. The first issue is accordingly decided holding that the contraband so recovered in the present matter being opium at the first instance and now as per FLS Report, it becomes opium derivative but then preparation as such has to be taken into consideration and not the extract of morphine therein. In other words, ignoring the total quantity of coagulated juice of opium poppy, which again is of commercial quantity, it cannot be said that quantity of morphine alone would be determining factor in this case. 22. The view so expressed by me on the issue is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Amarsingh Ramjibhari Barot (supra) wherein also matter was pertaining to sub-clause (e) of Section 2 (xvi). 22. The view so expressed by me on the issue is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Amarsingh Ramjibhari Barot (supra) wherein also matter was pertaining to sub-clause (e) of Section 2 (xvi). In Para 15 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:- "The evidence also does not indicate that the substance recovered from the appellant would fall within the meaning of sub-clause (a), (b), (c) & (d) of Section 2 (xvi). The residuary clause (e) would take into its sweep all preparation s containing more than 0.2 per cent of morphine. The FSL report proves that the substance recovered from the appellant had 2.8 per cent anhydride morphine. Consequently, it would amount to "opium derivative" within the meaning of Section 2 (xvi)(e). Clause (a) of Section 2(xi) defined the expression "manufactured drug" as: "2. (xi) 'manufactured drug' means - (a) all coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and poppy straw concentrate; (b) * * *" All opium derivatives" fall within the expression "manufactured drug" as defined in Section 2(xi) of the NDPS Act. Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that what was recovered from the appellant was "manufactured drug" within the meaning of Section 2(xi) of the NDPS Act. The material on record, therefore, indicated that the offence proved against the appellant fell clearly within Section 21 of the NDPS Act for illicit possession of 'manufactured drug'." 23. The perusal of the judgment shows that therein also recovery of contraband was of opium and substance of morphine therein was found to be more than 0.2 per cent as is the present case, thus it becomes opium derivative falling in sub-clause (e) of Section 2 (xvi) of the Act of 1985. It is, however, necessary to add that the aforesaid judgment was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its subsequent judgment of E. Micheal Raj (supra) and it was held that the judgment in Amarsingh's case (supra) cannot be taken an authority for advancing the proposition made by learned counsel for the Narcotic Department to held that entire substance recovered and seized irrespective of contents of narcotic drug is to be considered for application of Section 21 of the Act of 1985. But now as it is clarified that the facts of two cases were quite different and have been explained herein with further observation that by any judgment, a statutory provision cannot be made redundant unless struck down holding it be to an unconstitutional. Thus, in view of the above, clarification and also showing the difference of the facts in two cases, the judgment on the issue framed herein is given. 24. Now, comes to the second aspect which is based on the first issue so decide above. The second issue was framed under the circumstances that if contraband so recovered is not held to be of commercial quantity, then as to whether petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. Since the first issue has been decided against the petitioner, then second issue automatically becomes irrelevant because it is held to be a case of commercial quantity. Assuming that issue no. 1 would have been decided in favour of the petitioner holding that only the contents of morphine is required to be looked into then also even if morphine is of less than commercial quantity, it is a case where even extract of morphine is close to commercial quantity, thus, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Thus, the second issue is also decided against the petitioner. 25. In view of the discussion made above, the bail application of the petitioner is dismissed.