The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the definition of commercial quantity and the provisions for bail, override the general provisions of Cr.P.C. in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

1. The petitioner/A1 has focused the instant Criminal Revision before this Court, as against the order, dated 04.10.2013, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2581 of 2013, by the Learned Additional District Judge for Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

2. The Learned Additional District Judge for Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, while passing the impugned order, dated 04.10.2013, in Crl.M.P.No.2581 of 2013, has inter alia observed that the petitioner is in custody from 12.07.2013. Contraband recovered from the petitioner is 20kgs and the contraband involved in this case is 30kgs of Ganja i.e. commercial quantity. For commercial quantity, the mandatory provision for bail is 180 days, but in this case, the petitioner is in custody fro 85 days. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for an order of bail under Section 167(ii) Cr.P.C. and resultantly, dismissed the petition.

3. Assailing the correctness of the order of dismissal, dated 04.10.2013, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2581 of 2013, by the Learned Additional District Judge for Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1, submits that the impugned order dated 04.10.2013, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2581 of 2013, by the trial Court is against law and as such, it is liable to be set aside.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 urges before this Court that the Learned Additional District Judge for Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has not appreciated the ingredients of Section 2(vii)(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which speaks of “commercial quantity”, which runs as under:-

“Commercial quantity”, in relation to norcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette”

5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 projects an arguments that the notification S.O.1055(E), dated 19.10.2001, Table (see sub-clause (viia) and (xxiiia) of Section 2 of the Act) in serial No.55, Ganja is mentioned as 20kgs as commercial quantity and further, the small quantity (in gm) is mentioned as 1000. But in the present case, the respondent/police recovered only 20kgs from the petitioner/A1, which is an intermediate quantity and this vital aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court, at the time of passing of the order in Crl.M.P.No.2581 of 2013, dated 04.10.2013.

6. Expatiating his contention, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 strenuously contends that the statutory period is 60 days under Cr.P.C. for filing charge sheet before the Learned Additional District Judge for Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and in view of the fact that the respondent has not filed the charge sheet before the trial Court within 60 days, as adumbrated under Cr.P.C., the petitioner/A1 is entitled to obtain a statutory bail under Section 167(ii) Cr.P.C.

7. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 that A2(co-accused) was released on anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16574 of 2013, dated 26.09.2013.

8. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl. side), for the respondent/Police submits that the commercial quantity of Ganja viz., 20 kgs. is specified in Serial No.55 of the notification and in view of the fact that the petitioner/A1 was found to be in possession of 20 kgs of contraband viz., Ganja, which is admittedly a commercial quantity, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of statutory bail under Section 167(ii) Cr.P.C. Continuing further, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) contends that in respect of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, as per Section 36A(4) of the Act, the mandatory provision for bail is 180 days.

9. Further, it is the plea of the respondent that on 12.07.2013 at about 11.45 hours, the respondent/complainant while on raid at Cumbum to Kombai road near Paramathevar