1. The petitions are filed, under Section 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking grant of bail to the petitioners, who are A1 and A2 respectively, in F.No.DRI/HZU/48D/ENQ-15(lNT-31)/ 2016 now numbered as SC.No.52 of 2077 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, tvledak at Sangareddy. The offences alleged are under Sections 8. 9, 22, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Prasad Tiwari, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that as per the gist of the intelligence received by the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, a search was conducted in the premises of M/s. Venkata Raghava Labs Private Limited where A1 was found to be present and he informed that he entered into agreement with the General Manager of the said labs, to manufacture a drug named Dothiepin in the factory premises. On further enquiry, he admitted that he was manufacturing Alprazolam and that it is available in the drier available in a room adjacent to the production block. The officers found 48 trays containing brownish powder, in the form lumps/flakes and total quantity was seized and the quantity was found to be 132 Kgs in total.

4. The quantity, according to the prosecution, being above 100 gms of Alprazolam, falls under the commercial quantity as per the schedule of the Act.

5. The counsel for the petitioners relies on the chemical analysis report dated 08.02.2017, which is to the effect that the quantitative analysis of the sample could not be carried out. The report also shows that the sample sent to the FSL is in the form of off-white lumps, flakes and coarse powder. It answers the test for the presence of Alprazolam. It is on the basis of this observation made in the chemical analysis report, that the counsel contends that the entire powder, allegedly, seized from the possession of the petitioners cannot be said to be Alprazolam and that it only contains Alprazolam. He relies on the report, which shows that quantitative analysis could not be carried out and contends that in such circumstance, the quantity has to be considered as only a small quantity. In that regard, he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (1) 2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 110 (SC) : (2008) 5 SCC 161 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:

"Under the rationalised sentence structure, the punishment would vary depending upon whether 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