Case Name: HEM RAJ VS. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
Petition Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 19691 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 332
Date of Judgement: 08.04.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
INTRODUCTION
The appeal was filed by the accused, challenging a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had partially modified his sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. While the High Court reduced his substantive prison sentence, it upheld the imposition of separate, cumulative fines for multiple convictions arising out of the same incident. The Supreme Court examined whether separate punishments could be awarded for offences under Sections 25 and 29 when they stem from the main offence under Section 20, and crucially, whether fines must also be treated as concurrent when the substantive prison sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
FACTS
On December 22, 2014, police intercepted a car driven and owned by the co-accused. The appellant was sitting in the front passenger seat. Upon searching the vehicle, police recovered 4.1 kg of charas from a bag kept under the leg space of the appellant’s seat.
The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 25, read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court sentenced them to 12 years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and a ₹1,20,000 fine for the Section 20 offence, and separately imposed another 12 years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and an additional ₹1,20,000 fine for the Sections 25 and 29 offences. The default imprisonment for each unpaid fine was 1 year RI. The trial judge directed both substantive prison sentences to run concurrently. The High Court later reduced the substantive prison sentence to 10 years RI but left the rest of the sentence, including the dual fines, intact.
ISSUES
- Whether a convict can be sentenced separately for the main offence (Section 20) and the supplementary offences (Sections 25 and 29) when they arise from a single, indivisible transaction?
- Whether the financial penalties imposed for separate offences must also run concurrently, thus preventing the convict from paying double the fine amount, when the substantive sentences of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The Appellant argued that he could not be convicted under Section 25 because he did not own the car and therefore could not have “knowingly permitted” its use. He further contended that Sections 25 and 29 do not prescribe independent punishments but are merely extensions of the main offence. It was also submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant amounted to double punishment, which is prohibited under Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Finally, he argued that because the High Court directed the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently, the fine, which is also defined as a “punishment” under Section 53 of the IPC, should operate concurrently as well. To force a convict to pay the fine twice in such a scenario was deemed “illogical and impermissible.”
The Respondent (State) argued that the appellant was an “occupier” of the car and actively participated in the conspiracy, justifying the separate convictions. The State also submitted that the sentence awarded aligns with the provisions of Section 65 of the IPC. The State contended that the one-year sentence undergone by the Appellant for non-payment of fine for one offence wouldn’t relieve him from his liability to pay fine for another offence. The State contended that the minimum mandatory sentence under Section 20 was correctly applied, and relying on precedents, argued that the term of imprisonment in default of paying a fine is a penalty, not a sentence, thus justifying the cumulative financial burden.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the cumulative nature of the fines while upholding the separate convictions. Addressing the convictions, the Court clarified that Sections 25 and 29 are distinct, independent offences. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument regarding Section 25, noting that the provision explicitly applies to an “occupier” of a conveyance, not just the owner. Furthermore, the Court explained that while Sections 25 and 29 do not explicitly list a specific number of years, they state the offender shall receive “the punishment provided for that offence.” The Court identified this as a valid legislative tool known as legislation by reference or incorporation. Therefore, separate sentences for these distinct offences are legally permissible. However, because these offences were “parasitic and derivative” arising from the same transaction, the Court affirmed the “rule of wisdom” that the prison sentences should run concurrently to avoid double jeopardy.
Crucially, the Court then addressed the issue of the fines. Under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, a “fine” is officially classified as a punishment alongside imprisonment. The Supreme Court reasoned that one of the primary objects of making sentences run concurrently is to avoid double punishment for offences related to one set of facts. Therefore, when substantive sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently, it is entirely illogical to stack the financial penalties cumulatively.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court concluded that while separate sentences can be awarded for distinct offences under the NDPS Act arising from the same transaction, they must be harmonised to prevent unjust double punishment. The Court held that when substantive sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently, the amount of fine imposed must also be treated concurrently as part of the sentence; consequently, a convict cannot be forced to pay the fine twice. Noting that the appellant had already suffered 11 years of incarceration, which covered the 10-year substantive sentence plus the 1-year default imprisonment for the single, concurrent fine, the Court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith.
