These petitions are under S.439 Cr.P.C. Petitioners/ accused in both the cases are accused of having committed offences punishable under S.20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short'the Act').

2. In Crl.M.C. 253 of 1993 the allegation against the petitioner is that he kept 8.5 Kgs. of Gajja in two bags in his almirah in his house on 30-8-1992 and was recovered by the Circle Inspector of Police, Adimali. The allegation against the petitioners in Crl.M.C. 267 of 1993 is that they were found holding packets containing ganja at 9.30 p.m. on 14-10-1992. Petitioner in Crl.M.C. 253/93 was arrested on 30-8-1992 and petitioners in Crl.M.C. 267/93 were arrested on 14-10-1992. It is alleged that ever after that the said petitioners are in custody. According to the petitioners, S.37 of the Act i:» not applicable to this case as the period fixed in the proviso to S.167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is over. Reliance was placed on the decision in Berlin Joseph Ravi and another v. State and others (1992 (1) KLT 514 (FB) =1992 (1) KLJ 369). It is also contended by them that, since S.37 is applicable only to cases where the minimum sentence is five years, and as in the case of an offence punishable under S.29(b)(i) of the Act is not punishable with a minimum sentence of five, the offence punishable under S.20(b)(i) of the Act will not attract S.37 of the Act. In support of the said argument, reliance was made on the decision in A.V. Dharmasingh v. State of Karnataka (1993 CrI.L.J. 94).

3. As regards the contention on the basis of the decision in Berlin Joseph's case (1992 (1) KLT 514 (FB) = 1992 (1) KLJ 369) since in both the cases final reports have already been submitted, the restriction in the proviso to S.167(2) of the Cr.P.C- is not applicable; Section 167 Cr.P.C. governs only investigation. As noticed, in both the cases since the investigation is over and final report having been submitted under S.167 Cr.P.C. is not applicable.

4. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the grant of bail conditions in S.37 of the Act need not be satisfied as the said Section is not applicable in a case under S.20(b)(i) of the Act, it is necessary to read S.20(b)(i) and 37 of the Act. S.20(b)(i) of the Act reads:

"20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannahis plant and cannabis.

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted there under, -

(a)-

(b) Produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses canriubis, shall be punishable, -

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

(ii) (Emphasis Supplied)

Section 37 of the Act reads:

"37. 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 of fence 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

(1) The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (u) Where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the court is satisfied that there ate 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-section (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." (Emphasis Supplied)

5. In the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan lal (AIR 1991 SC 558) the Supreme Court held