The Supreme Court of India has held that while separate sentences can be imposed for distinct offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, a convict cannot be made to pay a fine twice if the substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria clarified that the amount of fine is a “sentence” under Section 53 of the IPC, and its collection must follow the concurrent nature of the imprisonment.
The Court addressed two primary legal challenges: first, whether an individual could be convicted and sentenced separately for possession of narcotics under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and for allowing the use of a vehicle or criminal conspiracy under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act; and second, whether a fine imposed for both offences must be paid cumulatively even if the prison terms are concurrent. The Court concluded that while separate sentences are legally permissible due to the independent nature of the offences, the fine amount—as a part of the punishment—cannot be collected twice in such circumstances.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on December 22, 2014, when a police squad at the Tunnuhatti Police Barrier intercepted a car occupied by the appellant, Hem Raj, and the vehicle’s owner, Kulwant Singh. A search revealed 4.100 kg of charas (commercial quantity) in a bag located in the leg space of the front seat where the appellant was sitting.
The Special Judge, Chamba, convicted both accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with 29 of the NDPS Act. They were sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,20,000 for each offence, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh later reduced the substantive sentence to 10 years but maintained the separate fine requirements.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel argued that the convictions arose from a single “indivisible transaction” and that separate punishments violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and Section 71 of the IPC. He contended that Sections 25 and 29 do not prescribe independent punishments but are extensions of the main offence. Regarding the fine, the counsel argued that since the imprisonment was concurrent, the fine should also be treated as concurrent, especially given the appellant’s poor economic condition.
The State countered that the appellant was an “occupier” of the vehicle and a co-conspirator. The State maintained that the NDPS Act allows for separate sentencing for these distinct criminal acts and that the fine is a mandatory component of the statutory punishment for commercial quantities of contraband.
The Court’s Analysis
On Separate Sentences: Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for the Bench, held that Sections 25 and 29 are independent offences. The Court noted that the legislature used the phrase “punishable with the punishment provided for that offence,” which is a form of “legislation by reference.”
“It would not be right to say that when Section 25 and Section 29 mention the punishment… it would mean that the imposition of separate punishment is not contemplated. Both the Sections 25 and 29 mention that the commissioner of offence in question shall be punishable with the punishment provided for ‘that offence’.”
The Court further explained that while these offences are distinct, they are often “parasitic and derivative” of the main offence, occurring in the same course of transaction. In such cases, the “rule of wisdom” dictates that sentences should run concurrently to avoid double jeopardy.
On the Imposition of Double Fine: The Court turned to Section 53 of the IPC, which lists “fine” as a form of punishment alongside imprisonment. The Bench relied on Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat (2013) to distinguish between the fine itself (a sentence) and default imprisonment (a penalty for non-payment).
“Section 53, IPC mentioned above also includes fine as a punishment to be part of sentence. In that view when the sentence is directed to run concurrently, the appellant cannot be made to pay fine twice.”
The Court observed that treating the imprisonment as concurrent but the fine as cumulative would be illogical and inconsistent with the objective of concurrent sentencing.
The Decision
The Supreme Court found that the appellant had already undergone 11 years of imprisonment, which included the period of default imprisonment. Since the Court ruled that the fine cannot be collected twice, and the appellant had already served the time associated with the concurrent sentencing framework, he was entitled to release.
The appeal was disposed of with a direction to set the appellant at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19691 of 2025)
- Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Justice N.V. Anjaria
- Date: April 08, 2026
