JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Balkar Singh, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 5 dated 15.01.2012 at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa, for an offence punishable under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was allegedly found keeping in his possession 2000 tablets of Medotil and 1000 tablets of Lomotil. According to him, as per the chemical examiner report, the aforesaid tablets were found containing two ingredients i.e. Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate. According to him, the tablets do not fall within the definition of psychotropic substance, the definition of which appears in section 2(xxiii) of the Act. According to him, psychotropic substance is one which is specified in the schedule. According to him, Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride is not mentioned in the schedule immediately following section 83 of the Act. He has further submitted that the material is not even covered by definition of manufactured drugs, as per the Notification no.SO 826-E dated 14.11.1985, entry no. 58. He has further submitted that even report of the Review Committee has been received in the matter which shows that the tablets in question fall in schedule H of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. According to him, the Review Committee has recommended prosecution of the petitioner under the Act only because he did not have a valid licence. According to him, even if he did not have a valid licence for keeping in his possession the aforesaid tablets, he would be liable to prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He has placed reliance in this regard on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Kashmir Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 684. 3. Notification dated 14.11.1985 deals with Diphenoxylate with its salts and preparations, admixtures, extracts or other substances at serial No.58. A preparation having not more than 2.5 mg. of Diphenoxylate equal, to which atropine sulphate equivalent to at least one per cent of the dosage of Diphenoxylate is added would not fall in the definition of manufactured drug as per the entry at Sr. No.58. A preparation having not more than 2.5 mg. of Diphenoxylate equal, to which atropine sulphate equivalent to at least one per cent of the dosage of Diphenoxylate is added would not fall in the definition of manufactured drug as per the entry at Sr. No.58. In the case in hand, the contents of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride , as per the chemical examination, was found to be 2.3 mg and 2.4 mg per tablet in the two samples. The contents of Atropine sulphate was less than 1 per cent of that and, therefore, as per the notification dated 14.11.1985 at entry no.58, the tablets in hand would not fall within the definition of manufactured drugs. 4. When the Review Committee has opined that the drugs Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine sulfate are in Schedule H of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, it cannot be said that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under the Act only for the reason that he did not have a chemist licence for keeping the same. 5. In this view of the matter, I find that the petitioner to be entitled to bail during the trial. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. ---------0.B.S.0------------