ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in Hira Singh & Anr vs Union of India , (2017) 8 SCC 162 , a two judge Bench of this Court has on 3 July 2017 referred the following questions in regard to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851 and the notification dated 19 October 2001 to a three Judge Bench: 1 "NDPS Act" "12.1 Whether the decision of this Court in E. Micheal Raj (supra) requires reconsideration having omitted to take note of entry 239 and Note 2 (two) of the notification dated 19.10.2001 as also the interplay of the other provisions of the Act with Section 21? 12.2 Does the impugned notification issued by the Central Government entail in redefining the parameters for constituting an offence and more particularly for awarding punishment? 12.3 Does the Act permit the Central Government to resort to such dispensation? 12.4 Does the Act envisage that the mixture of narcotic drug and seized material/substance should be considered as a preparation in totality or on the basis of the actual drug content of the specified narcotic drug? 12.5 Whether Section 21 of the Act is a standalone provision or intrinsically linked to the other provisions dealing with "manufactured drug" and "preparation" containing any manufactured drug?" 4. Learned counsel states that the reference before the three judge Bench has been heard and the judgment has been reserved. 5. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 10 years on a conviction under Section 22(c) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The High Court has confirmed the order of conviction while dismissing the appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance on the Report of the Chemical Examiner (Annexure P3) which specifies that two drugs were involved in the alleged offence i.e. Buprenorphine and Diazepam. 306 ampules and 57 ampules respectively of the drugs were seized. 7. The report of the Chemical Examiner indicates that in respect of Buprenorphine, each ampule contained 0.28 milligrams of Buprenorphine for 1 ml of preparation. 8. On this basis, it has been urged that it would be the submission of the appellant that the total quantity of the drug involved would be 171.36 ml (306x0.28x2). 7. The report of the Chemical Examiner indicates that in respect of Buprenorphine, each ampule contained 0.28 milligrams of Buprenorphine for 1 ml of preparation. 8. On this basis, it has been urged that it would be the submission of the appellant that the total quantity of the drug involved would be 171.36 ml (306x0.28x2). In respect of Diazepam, it has been submitted that the quantity of the drug would be 527.82 milligrams (4.63 mg x 57 x 2). 9. The submission of the learned counsel is that having due regard to the relevant entries contained at serial Nos. 169 and 194 of the notification dated 19 October 2001, the actual quantity of the drugs would be less than commercial quantity and, for that matter, less than the small quantity. 10. In the present case, the report of the Superintendent of the Central Prison & Correction Home, Viyyur dated 17 December 2018 indicates that the appellant has completed a period of 5 years 8 months and 15 days in jail. As on date, the appellant is in custody for approximately six and a half years. 11. Having regard to the above position and since the issue pertaining to the interpretation of Section 21 and the notification is pending before a three judge Bench which judgment has been reserved, we deem it appropriate and proper to direct that the appellant be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial court. 12. Liberty to apply for a fixed date of hearing after the judgment in reference before the three judge Bench is pronounced.