( 1 ) ). Leave to amend and add grounds.

( 2 ) ). Rule. Mr. K. P. Raval, learned A. P. P. , waives service of Rule. In view of the amendment permitted by this Court and carried out by the petitioner, learned sr. Counsel Mr. H. M. Mehta with Mr. S. C. Patel were heard, as by amendment, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Secs. 27, 37 and 52 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("n. D. P. S. Act" for short ).

( 3 ) ). With the consent of the parties learned Advocates, as they have waived service of Rule, the matter was heard for final hearing.

( 4 ) ). Petitioner, by this application, has prayed for bail under Sec. 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short) read with Sec. 37 of N. D. P. S. Act.

( 5 ) ). Few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions are as under :- one Motibhai Jinabhai, unarmed Head Constable of Dabhoda Police Station, had arrested one Mukhatyar Ali for possessing ganja (marijuana ). Said Mukhatyar ali had disclosed that he has bought the same from one Ambalal Ranchhodji Thakor of Isanpur Thakorevas, petitioner herein. In response to the same, the complainant proceeded towards the residential address of Ambalal to carry out the raid. When they reached near the house, one person was sitting on a cot in front of the house. On enquiry, he disclosed his name to be Ambalal Ranchhodji Thakor and after informing him, the house was searched and ganja was found in a plastic bag placed in a metal box below that iron cot. On enquiry whether he had any pass or permit to possess the same, he replied he has not. Said ganja was weighed and it was 250 grams. The same was seized and a complaint was lodged under Sec. 20 (b) of the n. D. P. S. Act. Said Ambalal, who is the petitioner before this Court, was arrested and he has moved this Court for enlarging him on bail.

( 6 ) ). It will not be out of context to state here that his application for bail is dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad on 16-5-1996. It will not be out of context to state that this application is filed before submission of chargesheet.

( 7 ) ). Petitioner has prayed for bail mainly on the following grounds :- (1) There is no prima facie case, i. e. , there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner-accused is not guilty inasmuch as there is a striking noncompliance of mandatory provisions of N. D. P. S. Act. When a trial would stand vitiated for non-compliance of manatory provisions of N. D. P. S. Act in view of the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994 (3) SCC 299), it should be held by this Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. (2) Assuming that narcotic substance is found from the possession of the petitioner, then also it is a small quantity as specified by the Central Government vide its notification No. SO/827 (E) dated 14-11-1985. Being a small quantity, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of Sec. 37 of n. D. P. S. Act, as it is covered by Sec. 27 of the N. D. P. S. Act, as held by his lordship N. N. Mathur J. in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2300 of 1996 decided on 13-6-1996. The case of the petitioner is then governed by the ordinary provisions of Sec. 437 read with Sec. 439 of the Code and the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. (3) Sub-clause (2) of Explanation to Sec. 27 of N. D. P. S. Act casts a burden on the accused to prove that he had possessed the said narcotic substance for personal consumption and casting any burden on the accused, contends the learned Advocates for the petitioner, is in contravention of Arts. 13, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Advocate, therefore, contended that sub-clause (2) of Explanation to Sec. 27 is ultra vires Arts. 13, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the case of the petitioner would be governed by ordinary law of bail under the Code and the pet