Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available to me during the course of arguments of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner moved an application under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., as challan was not filed within sixty days from the date of arrest. Under the provisions of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., procedure is provided when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours. As per the provisions Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate, to whom an accused person is forwarded, authorizes detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit, but then the term should not exceed to 15 days at a time. Under the proviso, it has further been provided that the total period of custody in those circumstances cannot go beyond a period of 60 days or 90 days as the case may be. Referring to the aforesaid provision read with provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, `the Act of 1985'), specifically Section 36A of the Act of 1985, where the detention of 90 days is to be read as 180 days, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter was not such where the detention can be authorized for 180 days. It is stated that the contraband "Opium" so recovered was 2.5 kg. in this case and the same cannot be considered to be commercial quantity in view of the definition of the commercial and small quantity provided under the Act of 1985. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Ratto vs. State of H.P. reported in 2003(3) Crimes 323, it has been emphasized that whatever quantity has been specified as commercial quantity in the Schedule appended to the NDPS Act, the commercial quantity can be such which is bigger, greater and higher than the quantity provided under the Schedule. Referring to the Schedule, it has been stated that for "Opium" the quantity mentioned is 2.5 kg, this, as per the definition of the commercial quantity provided under the Act of 1985, the quantity to be recovered should be greater or higher than 2.5 kg. so as to make out a case of commercial quantity. Referring to the Schedule, it has been stated that for "Opium" the quantity mentioned is 2.5 kg, this, as per the definition of the commercial quantity provided under the Act of 1985, the quantity to be recovered should be greater or higher than 2.5 kg. so as to make out a case of commercial quantity. It is stated that in the present matter since the recovery of "Opium" is 2.5 kg., thus, it is not greater than the quantity provided under the Schedule, hence cannot be considered as commercial quantity. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the challan was required to be filed within the specified time of 60 days provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act, failure of the Investigation Officer to submit the challan within the specified period makes the petitioner entitled for his release forthwith because the challan was not filed even on the day of filing of the application for grant of bail before the court below. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that the challan could not be filed in view of the fact that other accused was also involved in the matter and in any case the challan could be filed within 180 days as the quantity of 2.5 kg. of "Opium" should be considered as commercial quantity. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. For proper consideration of the issue, it is necessary to first refer to the definition of the small and commercial quantity as otherwise provided under the Provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. For ready reference, the definition of the commercial quantity and small quantity are reproduced hereunder: "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.' "small quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette; 6. The perusal of the definition keeps no room of doubt that for making it to be a case of commercial quantity, the quantity recovered should be greater, higher or more than the quantity notified in the Gazette as commercial quantity. The perusal of the definition keeps no room of doubt that for making it to be a case of commercial quantity, the quantity recovered should be greater, higher or more than the quantity notified in the Gazette as commercial quantity. In the case way, in case of small quantity, the contraband so recovered should be less than the quantity prescribed under the schedule as small quantity. The aforesaid issued was considered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Ratto (Supra) and therein discussing the issue, it was held as under: "29. We feel that there is no ambiguity in the language of Section 2 (viia), supra. As such, simple and literal meaning has to be given to the words "quantity greater than," so as to hold what would be the commercial quantity. 30. As already noted there is hardly any ambiguity, muchless conflict between Section 2(viia) and the notification as extracted here-in-above for determination of what would be the commercial quantity. By virtue of powers conferred under sub-section (viia) of Section 2, Central Government is authorized to notify as to what would be the commercial quantity. Because the "Commercial Quantity" on a plan reading of its definition amongst other things has to be "...greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification..." Under 2001 Act notification supra was issued specifying the quantity for the purpose of Section 2 (viia) of the Act. A perusal of this notification indicates that quantity specified is one kilogram. Various columns of the notification extracted hereinabove have to be read in conjunction with the substantive provision of Section 2 (viia) of the Act. This also puts a harmoneous construction on both, notification as well as Section 2(viia). While determining the quantity under this Sub-section, it has to be greater than one Kg. There is hardly nay doubt regarding either the words one kg. or the "commercial quantity" which has to be "greater than", which in our considered view would always mean any quantity more than/bigger than/larger than one Kg. We are further of the view that this provision, and for that matter, notification admits of no other interpretation on its reading. Thus, it cannot be said that one Kg. would be the commercial quantity for the purpose of Section 2 (viia), as added by 2001 Act. 31. We are further of the view that this provision, and for that matter, notification admits of no other interpretation on its reading. Thus, it cannot be said that one Kg. would be the commercial quantity for the purpose of Section 2 (viia), as added by 2001 Act. 31. Another reason to take this view is, that substantive and main provision of the Act is Section 2(viia) which is subject matter of the discussion in this judgment. It is also well known and accepted rule of interpretation of statues that rules, regulations as well as notifications issued thereunder are meant to sub-serve the purpose of main provision of law and not other way round. Notification in the instant case, as extracted hereinabove, is a delegated legislation. Therefore, it can in no case byepass or over-ride the substantive provision of law and in case of conflict, delegated legislation has to give way to the main provision of law. 32. In this behalf, we may also observe that legislature in its wisdom has used the words in this sub-section knowing their significance, as well as import and at the cost of repetition, it needs to be noted that when language is clear, then ordinary meaning to the words needs to be given. As such, no aids either internal or external need to be pressed into service as was urged on behalf of the respondent to give another meaning. No other point is raised. 33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, decisions of this Court in Mathew Andrews British National vs. State of H.P., State vs. Munshi Ramand Sarvjeet Singh vs. State (so far dealing with "commercial quantity" while canceling the bail) do not lay the correct law, therefore, these are overruled. At the same time, while answering this reference, it is held that in order to be the "commercial quantity" as defined in Section 2 (viia) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as amended by Central Act of 2001, it has always to be more than/greater than/bigger than one kg." 7. In the aforesaid case, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of interpretation of statues was also considered and thereafter an opinion has been recorded. In the present matter, the quantity of contraband namely, "Opium" so recovered is 2.5 kg. In the aforesaid case, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of interpretation of statues was also considered and thereafter an opinion has been recorded. In the present matter, the quantity of contraband namely, "Opium" so recovered is 2.5 kg. and if we look at the schedule then in the head of commercial quantity also, the quantity narrated therein for "Opium" is 2.5 kg and considering the definition of commercial quantity, the quantity of the contraband so recovered should be higher or greater than the quantity notified in the schedule. In the present matter, the quantity of the contraband so recovered being not greater or higher than the quantity provided under the schedule in the head of commercial quantity, thus the conclusion of the aforesaid issue is that the contraband so recovered is not of commercial quantity. 8. Now after coming to the conclusion that the contraband so recovered is not of commercial quantity, the issue further needs consideration is as to whether the challan could be filed within a period of 180 days as per Section 36A of the Act of 1985 or it can be within a period of 60 days. After perusal of the provision of Section 36 A of the Act of 1985, it becomes clear that where it is a case of commercial quantity, the challan can be filed within a period of 180 days and not otherwise. For ready reference, Section 36A of the Act of 1985 is also reproduced hereunder: "Section 36A. Offence triable by Special Courts....(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eightly days.": Provided that, if it not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days. 9. 9. Since, it is a case, where recovery of the contraband is of less than commercial quantity, the obvious consequences is that the period for filing challan is only of 60 days and in the present matter, the challan has not been filed within the aforesaid period, hence the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail in the view of the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A of NDPS Act and accordingly, the bail is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. 10. Accordingly, it is just and proper to release the accused-petitioner namely, Smt. Chanda Soni @ Pushpa w/o Laxminarayan Soni on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 143/2008 registered at Police Station Pushkar, District Ajmer for offence under Sections 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act provided, she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 11. It is also observed that though there exists delay on the part of the prosecution in submission of the challan but the trial Court is now directed to expedite the trial and complete the same within the shortest possible time. Copy of this order may be sent by the Registry to the trial Court for its compliance.