WAKIL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE prosecution case shows that 1060 gm heroin was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that sample of heroin was sent for chemical examination. THE report has been received which shows that purity of the recovered heroin is 0. 86. On the basis of the said report it has been argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that the recovered heroin was below commercial quantity but report shows that the sample under reference answer positive test for diacetylmorphine which is the chemical name of heroin. THE N. D. P. S. Act prescribes punishment for possession of heroin. No minimum percentage has been prescribed in the Act to attract punishment. Item No. 56 of the notification issued under Section 2 of the Act prescribed commercial quantity of heroin is 250 gm. It does not provide any specific purity of diacetylmorphine. THErefore it cannot be said at this stage that the recovered heroin was below commercial quantity. In the circumstances Section 37 of the Act comes into play. THEre is nothing to believe that the applicant is not accused of the offence complained of. THEre is nothing to show that the applicant if released on bail will not commit any such offence. No ground for bail is made out. THE bail application is rejected. Application rejected. .