1. Leave granted.

2. Limited question involved in this appeal is whether the restrictions imposed under S.37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") would be applicable in a case where offence is punishable under S.20(b)(i) for possessing ganja?

3. It is the prosecution version that acting on intelligence report a batch of Narcotic Control Bureau Officers searched the premises of respondent No. 1, Shambhu Sonkar, at G.T. Road, P.S. Golabari, District Howrah on 22.11.1999 and recovered 18.7 Kgs. of Gajja and a sum of Rs. 4,370/-. On the same date a confessional statement of the respondent was also recorded. The respondent filed a bail application before the Additional District Judge, Howrah, which was rejected by order dated 2nd February, 2000. Thereafter, the respondent approached the High Court of Calcutta and the High Court by its order dated 7th March, 2000 allowed the said bail application by holding that restrictions imposed by S.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "N.D.P.S. Act") would not be applicable as the maximum imprisonment provided for the offence under S.20(b) (i) is 5 years. That order is challenged by filing the present petition under Art.136 of the Constitution.

4. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that order passed by the High Court is on the face of it against the statutory mandate provided under S.37. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the interpretation given by the High Court is justified, particularly because it affects personal liberty of a citizen who is yet to be tried. For appreciating the rival contentions we would refer to Ss.20 and 37 of the said Act which read thus:

"20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.- Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any Rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder

(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable.

(i) where such contravention relates to ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees;

(ii) where such contravention relates to cannabis other than ganja, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may extend to two lakh rupees;

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees."

S. 37. Offence 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 of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless

the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to impose the application for such release,

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of 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 sub-s. (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."

5. The scheme of S.37 reveals that the exercise of the power to grant bail by the Special Judge is not only subject to the limitations contained under S.439 of the Cr.P.C., but is also subject to the limitation placed by S.37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The op