Dosage-form psychotropic quantity is based on active content, and delayed complaint filing preserves the right to default bail.

In psychotropic substances seized in tablet or dosage form, commercial quantity must be determined by the actual psychotropic content and not by adding inactive ingredients such as fillers or carriers; on that basis, the seizure did not qualify as commercial quantity. Where the complaint was filed after expiry of the statutory period under Section 167(2) CrPC, the accused acquired an indefeasible right to default bail, and the later filing of the complaint did not extinguish that right. The revision was allowed, the refusal of bail was set aside, and release on bail was directed subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for determining commercial quantity in respect of psychotropic substances seized in tablet or dosage form, the inactive ingredients are to be counted along with the active psychotropic substance. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on account of failure to file the complaint within the prescribed period.

Issue (i): Whether, for determining commercial quantity in respect of psychotropic substances seized in tablet or dosage form, the inactive ingredients are to be counted along with the active psychotropic substance.

Analysis: The quantity determination was examined with reference to the statutory scheme governing psychotropic substances, the notification specifying small and commercial quantities, and the treatment of preparation and dosage form. The seized tablets were held to be in dosage form. The relevant quantity for classification was the psychotropic content of the tablets, not the entire weight of the tablets including inactive ingredients used as carriers or fillers. The reasoning followed the principle that dosage form must be assessed by the actual narcotic or psychotropic substance contained in it.

Conclusion: The inactive ingredients were not to be added for the purpose of determining commercial quantity, and the seizure did not fall within commercial quantity on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on account of failure to file the complaint within the prescribed period.

Analysis: The petitioners had remained in custody beyond the period prescribed for filing the complaint. The complaint was filed after expiry of the statutory period, and the right to default bail had accrued on the completion of that period. That right was treated as an indefeasible statutory right, and the later filing of the complaint did not extinguish it. The restrictions applicable to commercial quantity did not defeat the entitlement once the statutory default had occurred.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to default bail.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the impugned order refusing bail was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to be released on bail subject to the stated conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions involving psychotropic substances in dosage form, quantity must be determined on the basis of the actual psychotropic content and not the inactive ingredients, and an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail once the prosecution fails to file the complaint within the statutory period.

---