( 1 ) THE short question for consideration in this order is as to whether the provisions contained in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would be applicable to applications for bail in cases prior to the coming into force of this ammended section.

( 2 ) THE Act came into force on 14th November. 1985 and Section 37 at that time was as under :- Offenecs to be cognizable

"notwithstanding anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishablc under this Act, shall be cognizable. "

( 3 ) THIS Act was subsequently amended vide Act No. 2 of 1989 and Section 37 was substituted by the following section : Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. (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 a term of imprisonment ot" five years or more under this Act 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 oppose the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds tor believing that be is not guilty ot 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 Subsection (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.

( 4 ) S/shri J. C. Sawhney, I. U. Khan and Harjinder Singh have made submissions on behalf of accused while Shri J. S. Arora made submissions on behalf of the respondent.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel tor the petitioner have submitted that the amendment is of a penal nature and will not be applied retrospectively. It has also been submitted that there is a vested right in the petitioner to apply for bail and, thus, the question with regard to the grant of bail has to be considered in the light of the provisions in existence at the time at which the offence is alleged to have been committed. It has, thus, been submitted that the safeguards provided under the 1985 Act cannot be taken away with retrospective effect under Section 37 as amended. It has further been submitted that it is cardinal principle of law that retrospective effect shall be given only when the intention is made clear in the Act itself otherwise the amended sections have to be effective only prospectively. Another submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has been that there is a complete bar to the effect that no person shall be convicted ot any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence not be subjected to a penalty greater that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater that which might have been, inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It has. thus, been submitted that to deprive the petitioner of his right of bail by making stringent conditions would trantamount to imposing a penalty greater than that which, could be inflicted under the law as in force at the time of (he commission of the offence which is not permissible under Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that there has not been any material change in the substantive law and that only amendment made in Section 37 of the Act has been that more conditions have been imposed to be complied with before a person could be entitled to be released on bail. He has also submitted that this being only a procedural amendment has to be made applicable to all the applications m