JUDGMENT V.K Ahuja, J. This order shall dispose of an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.etc. filed by the petitioner for the grant of bail in case F.I.R No. 240 of 2012 dated 22.09.2012,under Section 20 and 29 of ND &PS Act, P.S Sadar Kullu, H.P. The petitioner has been arrested along with another person Baupana for possessing Charas weighing about 1.700 Kg. and the case was registered under Section 20 and 29 of ND & P.S Act. Both these persons were coming from Manikaran side, carrying two bags on their back and on suspicion, they were apprehended by the police party and the recoveries were effected from their possession. The challan in question has already been filed before the learned Special Judge on 1.12.2012. 2. A notice of the application was issued to the State. 3. I have heard Mr. Yadvender Gupta, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the petitioner and co-accused were found in possession of 1.700 Kg. of Charas and keeping in view the percentage of resin in the sample analysed by the expert as 36.85%, the weight of charas comes to 626.45 gram and as such it ceases to be the non-commercial quantity. 5. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the entire bulk of recovery made from the person of the petitioner and his co-accused is to be considered as charas not the percentage of resin and the said judgment in which it was held that the percentage of resin is to be considered in Sunil Kumar case and Dharam Pal case of this High Court reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 207 and Latest HLJ 2007 (HP)827, which is under the consideration before the Apex Court, as informed by the learned Assistant Advocate General and the judgment in Sunil Kumar’s case is pending for re-consideration, before the Full Bench of this High Court constituted for the purpose of re-consideration of the judgment. Moreover, I am not convinced of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the percentage of resin only should be considered. Moreover, I am not convinced of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the percentage of resin only should be considered. In view of the aforesaid judgments, I am also not convinced of the submissions concerned, since it was brought to the knowledge of this Court during the course of arguments that the amendment had been made in the ND&PS Act vide Notification dated 18.11.2009 and it was mentioned in the table at the end at Note 3, that the following Note shall be inserted, namely:- “(4) The quantities shown in column 5 and column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers wherever existence of such substances is possible and not just its pure drug contents.” 6. It is clear that this amendment was not considered by the Hon’ble Judges in the judgments Sunil Kumar Versus State of H.P and Dharam Pal Vs. State of H.P. (supra) and once an amendment of the Act had already been made vide which the entire mixture is to be considered not the resin contents, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled being devoid of any course. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to refer to the international U.N Convention and the said convention as of the year 1925 and thereafter to hold that they should be considered in preference to the provisions of the Act. Once the Notification has been issued under the provisions of the Act and the Act had incorporated the quantity which is there term it as small quantity and commercial quantity which in the present case is 1 kg.or above. Therefore, U.N convention in this regard are not required to be referred, which were only required for the purpose of some clarification or so. The Act already stands amended and the entire quantity has to be considered as Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substance and at this stage no final decision can be given in this regard. At the time of grant of bail only prima facie report is to be considered. The Act already stands amended and the entire quantity has to be considered as Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substance and at this stage no final decision can be given in this regard. At the time of grant of bail only prima facie report is to be considered. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in case report of FSL is ignored, there is nothing to hold that what was recovered was charas. The question as to whether what were contents of Psychotropic substance or Narcotic drug has to be considered after considering the report of FSL and therefore, this submission does not held good to ignore the report of FSL. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Punjab High Court Hem Raj versus State of Punjab, reported in 2004(1) RCR (Criminal), 359. In that case, the Hon’ble High Court had allowed the bail though, it was observed that the quantity was commercial and once it was commercial quantity, the Court can not hold that quantity was not too much and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be bail, though if it is commercial quantity and quantity of charas exceed 1 kg, the bail can not be granted. 8. Learned Assistant Advocate General has conceeded at Bar that the learned Session Judge had wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Versus State of Punjab, (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 441, which was not applicable to the facts of the case. 9. Keeping in view the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the bail application filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly.