STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GANAPATI MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suo motu proceeding was started on coming to the notice of this Court that a person accused of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinaftar, 'the Act') had been released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 138/92 in exercise of power Under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code by relying on a decision of this Court in Bidyadhar Dalai v. State, (1992) 5 OCR 31, in which this Court in exercise of power Under Section 482, Cr PC (which power is not available to a Sessions Judge1) had quashed the detention, because of which the requirements of Section 37 of the Act were not borne in mind. That judgment made it clear in paragraph 15 that the accused persons were not being released on bail in exercise of power Under Section 439, Cr PC. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did so without adverting to the requirements of Section 37 of the Act, which appeared prima facie to be illegal,.

(2.) SHRI Panigrahi has appeared for the opposite party and -the only submission made by him is that the present case attracted Section 27 of the Act, because of which the offence would have been punishable with imprisonment upto a maximum period of one year so, the. requirements of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act are not to be complied with before the opposite party could be released on bail. This stand has been taken by the learned counsel, because the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge clearly shows that the requirements of Section 37(1)(b) had not been borne in mind.

(3.) THE important question is whether in a case of small quantity, the requirements of Section 37 can be said to be non -applicable. From what is being stated later, it would be clear that this is not so.