JUDGMENT Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel for the accused-applicant and Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 1. The case of the prosecution is that 15(fifteen) bottles of 'ESkuf' syrup (Codeine Phosphate & Chlorpheniramine Maleate Syrup) containing contraband, i.e. Codeine were found from the shop of the accused-applicant namely Sri Babul Banik. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant vehemently denies the aforesaid fact. However, conscious possession or otherwise will be determined in course of the trial. 3. This Court finds that the drug in question, i.e. 'ESkuf' was manufactured by LABORATE Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. (Unit-II), 31, Rajban Road, Nariwala, Paonta Sahib (H.P.), one bottle of which was produced by the learned Public Prosecutor in Court today and in terms of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 the applicant admittedly has no licence for sale of such drugs and further in terms of Rule 97 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, medicines containing Codeine have to be labeled in terms of the said Rule and on verification of one bottle produced, it appears that the medicine carries the label which also mandatorily requires a declaration that Schedule H Prescription Drug-Warning 'To be sold by retail on the prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioner only'. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Ratan Datta has also produced before this Court a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Singh and another v. Union of India and another reported in 2020 AIR (SC) 3255, where the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering various issues has come to conclude as follows: '10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Reference is answered as under: (I). The decision of this Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj (Supra) taking the view that in the mixture of narcotic drugs or 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 and only the actual content by weight of the offending narcotic drug which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity, is not a good law; (II). In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the 'small or commercial quantity' of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances; (III). Section 21 of the NDPS Act is not stand-alone provision and must be construed along with other provisions in the statute including provisions in the NDPS Act including Notification No.S.O.2942(E) dated 18.11.2009 and Notification S.O 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001; (IV). Challenge to Notification dated 18.11.2009 adding 'Note 4' to the Notification dated 19.10.2001, fails and it is observed and held that the same is not ultra vires to the Scheme and the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act. Consequently, writ petitions and Civil Appeal No. 5218/2017 challenging the aforesaid notification stand dismissed.' 5. In view of above, the instant anticipatory bail application of the accused-applicant stands rejected. 6. Accused-applicant is at liberty to seek regular bail after he surrenders and participates in course of the investigation.