JUDGMENT : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. The petitioner was charged for committing offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act) before the Court of learned Special Judge, 6th Court, 24-Parganas (North). The petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected on February 4, 2011. Petitioner filed the instant revisional application as against the order by which his prayer for bail was rejected. According to him, unless and until the Chemical Examination Report was received by the learned Special Judge charge sheet could not be submitted. Hence, prayer for bail should be allowed after expiry of the statutory period. Pertinent to note, that he renewed his prayer on February 7, 2011 when, by a reasoned order, the learned Special Judge rejected his prayer. Perusal of the order impugned would show that the learned Judge did not reject the prayer for bail on the said date. He merely postponed the same till the next date of hearing i.e. February 7, 2011. The matter was argued at length before the learned Judge on the next day i.e. on February 7, 2011. The learned advocate for the accused contended before the learned Judge that without waiting for the Chemical Examination Report the prosecution could not have submitted charge sheet and such charge sheet was nonest in the eye of law in absence of the Chemical Examination Report. Hence, he was entitled to be released on bail after the statutory period. The learned Judge, upon hearing both sides, came to conclusion that the accused was charged with the offence of having “Ganja” (Cannabis) in his possession. According to the learned Judge, it was a natural product and not an artificial product which was to be determined by the Chemical Examination. According to the learned Judge, since the contraband materials were natural produce, the prima facie charge brought against the accused in the charge sheet, could not be said to be nonest in the eye of law. The learned Judge rejected the contention and held that the charge sheet was valid in the eye of law. The learned Judge rejected the prayer for bail. Mrs. Rupna Bhattacharya Ray, learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner strenuously contended before me that unless and until Chemical Examination Report was received by the prosecution the prosecution was not entitled to submit charge sheet. Mrs. The learned Judge rejected the prayer for bail. Mrs. Rupna Bhattacharya Ray, learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner strenuously contended before me that unless and until Chemical Examination Report was received by the prosecution the prosecution was not entitled to submit charge sheet. Mrs. Bhattacharya Ray relied on the following decisions : i) All India Reporter 1993 Supreme Court Page-1456 (Gaunter Edwin Kircher -VS-State of Goa, Secretariat Panji, Goa ) ii) 1994 Criminal Law Journal Page-1 (Valsala - VS- State of Kerala) iii) 1995 Criminal Law Journal Page-1758 (Pilli Dilli Dora -VS-State of Orissa) iv) 2001 Criminal Law Journal Page-1832 (Uday Mohanlal Acharya -VS- State of Maharashtra) v) 2002 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Supreme Court) Page-597 (Khet Singh -VS- Union of India) In the decision in the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher (Supra), the Apex Court considered a case where on a regular trial the accused was convicted. On perusal of the said decision, it appears that the Apex Court considered the quantity of the seized article and reduced the sentence having found it of “small quantity” within the meaning of N.D.P.S. Act. In the case of Valsala (Supra), the Apex Court, on consideration of the facts involved therein, expressed doubt as to whether the seized article was sent for Chemical Examination. In the case of Pilli Dilli Dora (Supra), the learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court observed that merely because the officer on duty examined the contents of Ganja by burning and smelling would not be sufficient, Chemical Examination of the seized article was mandatory. I am unable to find out any relevance of the proposition of law to decide the case in hand. The substance was sent for Chemical Examination. The report is yet to arrive. At the time of trial the prosecution must prove that the seized article squarely comes within the prohibited items under the N.D.P.S. Act and such proof would be done by recognized Chemical Examination only. As observed hereinbefore, Ganja is a natural produce and is covered by N.D.P.S. Act as prohibited item. Hence, the prima facie charge is apparent and the prosecution is entitled to issue charge sheet. Significant to note, charge is yet to be framed. As observed hereinbefore, Ganja is a natural produce and is covered by N.D.P.S. Act as prohibited item. Hence, the prima facie charge is apparent and the prosecution is entitled to issue charge sheet. Significant to note, charge is yet to be framed. In the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya (Supra), a majority decision of the Apex Court, sitting on a Three Judge Bench, observed that when an application for bail was filed by an accused for enforcement of his indivisible right alleged to have accrued in his favour on account of default on the part of the investigating agency in completion of the investigation within the specified period the Magistrate must dispose it of forthwith after being satisfied that the accused was in custody for the statutory period. In the instant case, charge sheet was submitted within the statutory period. Charge sheet was based on prima facie case made out by the prosecution. This decision, in my view, would be of no assistance to the accused. In the case of Khet Singh (Supra), the Apex Court observed that the standing instruction issued by Narcotics Control Bureau although not having any statutory force, should be followed as a guideline during investigation. Significant to note, in the said case the appellant was found to be in possession of Opium. The Apex Court refused to interfere. The revisional application fails and is hereby dismissed.