JUDGMENT : 1. On 16.01.2018, a police patrol party spotted a vehicle bearing registration No. JK01X-7020 at Ali Jan Road near Bohlochipora. The vehicle was stopped and checked. A quantity of 1019 bottles of Cof-Rex and Rex-cof were found and recovered from the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by Faisal Ayoub Sheikh S/o Mohd. Ayoub Sheikh R/o MIG Colony Bemina, Srinagar, who was accompanied by Feroz Ahmad Khanday S/o Gh. Mohd. Khanday R/o Bilal Colony, Qamarwari, Srinagar and Mudasir Sultan Bhat @ Majid S/o Mohd. Sultan Bhat R/o Sir Syed Abad Bemina, Srinagar. After the recovery of these controlled drugs, a case bearing an FIR No. 07/2018 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 8/22 NDPS Act, was registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Soura, Srinagar, with which the investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation of the case, the controlled drugs (799 bottles of Cof-Rex weighing 100 ml each and 220 bottles of Rex-Cof weighing100 ml each) were sealed and seized on spot. These were produced before an Executive Magistrate. The samples of the drugs were taken. These were sent to FSL for expert opinion. The residue was resealed and, accordingly, the accused were roped in for the commission of the offences aforesaid. 2. The pith and core of the petition of the petitioners is that it is only an intermediatory quantity of drugs that has been seized from them and, therefore, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, will not apply to the case on hand. It is also stated by the petitioners that they are innocent and have not committed any offence. The contention of the petitioners further is that in a case like the present one grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that they have deep roots in the society and they will not flee from justice but will cooperate with the investigating officer and will present themselves before him if and when they are required to do so. 3. The respondents have resisted and controverted the applications of the applicants chiefly on the grounds that the controlled drugs were recovered from the possession of the applicants. The petitioners have committed a heinous offence. The menace of the drugs has eaten into the vitals of the society. 3. The respondents have resisted and controverted the applications of the applicants chiefly on the grounds that the controlled drugs were recovered from the possession of the applicants. The petitioners have committed a heinous offence. The menace of the drugs has eaten into the vitals of the society. It is a crime against the society and the societal concerns have to be guarded with zeal and zest. The motion so preferred by the petitioners seeking admission to bail in relation to the above referred crime is devoid of any merit and, as such, the same deserves to be rejected, as the quantity of drugs recovered from them falls within the scales of commercial quantity. 4. Heard and considered. 5. What requires to be stated at the outset is that Faisal Ayoub Sheikh, one of the petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Srinagar and the learned Judge after taking an overall view of the application came to the conclusion that a commercial quantity of the drugs has been recovered from his possession and, therefore, he cannot be admitted to bail. This petitioner, however, has repeated and reiterated that the quantity of drugs seized in the case is lesser than a commercial quantity but greater than a smaller quantity and, therefore, he is entitled to bail. The other petitioner, Feroz Ahmad Khanday has been admitted to interim bail by this Court. 6. The apex Court of the country in the case of E Micheal Raj v. Narcotic Control Bureau reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 161, while examining whether it is the pure content of the drug or the entire mixture that has to be taken into consideration in determining whether the same falls within the parameters of the small, medium or commercial quantity, held as under: It appears from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act of 2001 that the intention of the legislature was to rationalize the sentence structure so as to ensure that while drug traffickers who traffic in significant quantities of drugs are punished with deterrent sentence, the addicts and those who commit less serious offences are sentenced to less severe punishment. Under the rationalised sentence structure, the punishment would vary depending upon the quantity of offending material. Under the rationalised sentence structure, the punishment would vary depending upon the quantity of offending material. Thus, we find it difficult to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the rate of purity is irrelevant since any preparation which is more than the commercial quantity of 250 gms. and contains 0.2% of heroin or more would be punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, because the intention of the legislature as it appears to us is to levy punishment based on the content of the offending drug in the mixture and not on the weight of the mixture as such. This may be tested on the following rationale. Supposing 4 gms. of heroin is recovered from an accused, it would amount to a small quantity, but when the same 4 gms. is mixed with 50 kgs. of the powered sugar, it would be quantified as a commercial quantity. In the mixture of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance with one or more neutral substance/s, the quantity of the neutral substance/s is not to be taken into consideration while determining the small quantity or commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. It is only the actual content by weight of the narcotic drug which is relevant for the purposes of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity. The intention of the legislature for introduction of the amendment as it appear to us is to punish the people who commit less serious offences with less severe punishment and those who commit grave crimes, such as trafficking in significant quantities, with more severe punishment. 7. In the wake of the above judicial precedent, if any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found mixed with one or more neutral substance(s), it is only the actual content by weight of the narcotic drug and psychotropic substance that has to be taken into consideration while determining whether the same falls within the scales of a small quantity, a commercial quantity or an intermediary one. In order to mitigate the rigor of the judicial dictum cited above and its application to a given case, the central Government issued a notification bearing No. S.O. 2941 (E) dated 18.11.2009, which makes the following amendment in the Notification S. O. 1055 (E), dated 19th October, 2001: “In the Table at the end after Note 3, 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 substance 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 substance is possible and not just its pure drug content.” 8. On the face of the notification cited above, it is not the pure content of the drug that has been taken into consideration but the entire mixture of any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such a substance is possible and not just its pure drug content. The notification makes it abundantly clear that the entire quantity of drug has to be taken into consideration in assessing and evaluating whether the same falls within the definition and scope of the commercial quantity or the small quantity or an intermediary one. 9. In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (viia) and (xxiiia) of Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and in super session of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Notification S.O. 527 (E) dated 16th July, 1996, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such super session, the Central Government specified the quantity mentioned in columns 5 and 6 of the Table, in relation to the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance mentioned in the corresponding entry in columns 2 to 4 of the said Table, as the small quantity and commercial quantity respectively for the purpose of the said clauses of that section. Column 5 provides that a quantity upto 2 gms of codeine falls within the parameters of small quantity and a quantity of 1 Kg falls within the scales of commercial quantity. Column 5 provides that a quantity upto 2 gms of codeine falls within the parameters of small quantity and a quantity of 1 Kg falls within the scales of commercial quantity. The seized bottles contain Codeine Phosphate I.P.10 mg and Chlorpheniramine Maleate I.P. 4 mg along with the other mixtures. Each seized bottle weighs 100 ml and the total quantity is far ahead of a Commercial one. The quantity of drugs recovered from the possession of the petitioners, therefore, falls within the limits, bounds and the scales of a commercial quantity to which the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies in all the fours. If a case falls within the scope and definition of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, grant of bail has to be considered on the agility of the said provision in addition to other limitations prescribed under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which reads as follows: "[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bail able;- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail,]." 10. From the perusal of Section 37 quoted above, it is evident that no person can be enlarged on bail, if he is found to be in the possession of a commercial quantity of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act or offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A Act unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty of such an offence. These restrictions are provided in addition to the checks and curbs imposed under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law governing the grant of bails. In the present case, as is reiterated here, the petitioners have been found to be in the possession of 1019 bottles Cof-Rex and Rex-Cof. On the basis of the recovery of such a huge quantity of controlled drugs found in the possession of the petitioners, it can well be said that the petitioners are prima facie involved in the commission for the offences aforesaid and there is no reasonable ground to believe that they are not guilty of such offences. The natural or unpresentable human propensity to always eat the forbidden fruits will ever find means and ways to frustrate the laws and rules prohibiting the use of all such stuff. 11. In view of the preceding analysis, both the petitions of the petitioners are rejected and the order dated 2nd February, 2018, whereby the petitioner namely, Feroz Ahmad Khanday has been admitted to interim bail is recalled. The petitioners shall be taken into custody and they shall be at liberty to move an application for the grant of bail in their favour before the trial Court which shall be decided on its merits.