JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The accused-petitioner has moved this application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of DRI No. F.No.840/JPR/19-XXVI/2012 registered at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 8/22, 8/23 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on search being made of the house as well as car found in the possession of the petitioner Psychotropic Substance Ketamine Drug weighing 162 kg was recovered without any valid license or permit and a cash amount of more than Rs. 17.50 lac was also recovered. 4. After investigation charge-sheet against the petitioner and co-accused has already been filed for the aforesaid offences and presently they are facing trial. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 4.5.2013. 5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that initially Ketamine Drug was designated neither as narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Act and it was declared as a psychotropic substance vide notification dated 10.2.2011 and thereafter vide notification dated 21.6.2011 small quantity and commercial quantity of the same was notified. Inviting attention of the Court towards Section 77 of the Act, it was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to this provision every notification issued under Clause(viia), Clause(xi), Clause(xxiiia) of Section 2 of the Act, was required to be laid as soon as after it is issued before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and unless it is approved by both Houses, the notification will stand ineffective and inoperative. It was further submitted that information provided by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat vide letter dated 3.7.2012 shows that the notification dated 10.2.2011 was never laid before Rajya Sabha as required by Section 77 of the Act and, therefore, the declaration of 'Ketamine' drug as a 'Psychotropic Substance' vide aforesaid notification is of no effect and on the date on which the alleged recovery was made no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner because it was neither a narcotic drug nor psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Act. Inviting attention to Section 32 of the act, it was also contended that if no punishment is separately provided under the provisions of the Act for any contravention thereof, at the most imprisonment for a term extending six months can be awarded and such being the position, the offence is bailable and the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail as a right. It was further submitted that the question regarding compliance of provisions of Section 77 of the Act was considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India v. . Abhijeet Prabhakar and vide order dated 8.9.2011 benefit of bail was granted to the accused. 6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor invited attention of the Court towards the letter dated 18.3.2012 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and submitted that both the aforesaid notifications were laid on the table of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on 12.8.2011 and 16.8.2011 respectively as required under Section 77 of the Act, but no further communication was received regarding modification or annulment of these notifications implying that these notifications shall continue in the manner they were originally notified. It was further submitted that as the requirement of Section 77 of the Act has been complied with the 'Ketamine' drug must be regarded as psychotropic substance as declared by the aforesaid notification dated 10.2.2011. It was further submitted that otherwise also the provisions of Section 77 of the Act are not mandatory and merely on account of non-compliance thereof, the aforesaid notifications do not lose their validity. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law. 8. In view of the letter dated 18.3.2013 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue there is no doubt that both the aforesaid notifications were laid before the Lok Shabha and Rajya Sabha as required under Section 77 of the Act and, therefore, the sole submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not legally tenable. Otherwise also the laying of a notification before both the Houses of Parliament cannot be said to be mandatory. This aspect of the question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Karnataka reported in 2011 (9) SCC 1 in regard to a notification dated 8.3.1994 issued under Section 110 of the Karnatka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It was held that non-laying of the notification before the State Legislature has not effected its validity or the action taken precedent to that notification. It was further held that object of requirement of laying provided in enabling Acts is to subject the subordinate law making authority to the vigilance and control of the Legislature. The degree of control the Legislature wants can be noticed on the language used in such laying clause. In the case of Jan Mohd. Noor v. . State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1966 SC 385 , it was held that the requirement of law to place notification before the Parliament is directory in nature. 9. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, looking to the quantity of the recovered psychotropic substance, the gravity of the offence the prohibition under Section 37 of the Act and the role found of the petitioner in the incident, but without expressing any final opinion on the merit and de-merit of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings.Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.Bail application dismissed. *******