Case at a Glance
A man convicted for transporting 4.1 kg of charas was sentenced separately under Section 20 and under Sections 25 read with 29 of the NDPS Act, each with a fine of ₹1,20,000 and default imprisonment, with the sentences running concurrently. He did not challenge his conviction but argued that he was being punished twice. The Supreme Court held that Sections 25 and 29 are independent offences that may attract separate punishment, but where they arise from the same transaction and the sentences run concurrently, the convict cannot be made to pay the fine twice. Since he had already served the default imprisonment, the Court ordered his immediate release.
On 22 December 2014, at about 3:50 a.m., police at a checkpoint in Himachal Pradesh stopped a car driven by its registered owner, with the appellant in the front seat. A bag under the appellant’s seat contained eight packets of charas weighing 4 kg 100 g. Both men were charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and on 7 November 2019 the Special Judge, Chamba convicted them.
On 16 November 2019 each convict was sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,20,000 (with one year’s default imprisonment) under Section 20, and an identical sentence under Sections 25 read with 29, with the substantive sentences running concurrently. On 5 December 2023 the Himachal Pradesh High Court reduced the appellant’s substantive sentence to 10 years but upheld the rest. In the Supreme Court the appellant did not challenge his conviction; he challenged the separate sentences and the double fine.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can separate sentences be imposed under Section 20 and Sections 25/29 of the NDPS Act for the same transaction, and if the sentences run concurrently, must the convict pay the fine (or undergo default imprisonment) for each offence?
Separate Offences, Concurrent Sentences and the Fine
Examining the scheme of the NDPS Act, the Court held that Section 25 (allowing premises or a conveyance to be used for an offence) and Section 29 (abetment and criminal conspiracy) each create a separate offence; the phrase ‘punishment provided for that offence’ operates as legislation by reference, so separate punishment is contemplated. Each such provision “is conceived by the legislature to be a separate offence and engrafted in the Act accordingly.” But where the offences arise out of the same transaction, the sentences should run concurrently to avoid double punishment.
On the fine, the Court relied on Section 53 IPC and on Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 10 SC CK 0051 and Shantilal v. State of M.P. It held that “the amount of fine imposed required to be paid by the convict is a sentence and has to be treated as part of sentence,” whereas imprisonment in default is a penalty for non-payment. Consequently, “when the sentence is directed to run concurrently, the appellant cannot be made to pay fine twice.” As the appellant had already undergone the default imprisonment, he was entitled to be released.
What the Court Actually Held
- Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act create separate, independent offences for which separate punishment may be imposed.
- Where these offences arise out of the same transaction, the sentences should run concurrently.
- A fine is part of the sentence; when sentences run concurrently, the convict cannot be made to pay the fine twice.
- Having already served the default imprisonment, the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies a recurring sentencing question in NDPS cases where multiple sections are invoked for one seizure.
- It prevents convicts from serving extra default imprisonment for duplicated fines.
- It guides trial courts to structure sentences and fines correctly when ordering concurrency.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Convicts and Families
- If sentences for the same transaction are concurrent, check whether the fine has been duplicated.
- Default imprisonment already served can count towards securing release where a double fine is involved.
For Counsel
- Raise the double-fine issue even if conviction is not challenged; it can lead to immediate release.
- Cite Section 53 IPC and Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat on fine as part of sentence.
- Seek a specific direction on concurrency for both imprisonment and fines at the sentencing stage.
Key Takeaways
- Sections 25 and 29 NDPS Act are standalone offences.
- Same-transaction sentences should run concurrently.
- Fine is part of sentence; it cannot be exacted twice under concurrent sentences.
- The appellant was ordered to be released.
Frequently Asked Questions
If NDPS sentences run concurrently, do fines also run concurrently?
According to this judgment, a convict whose sentences run concurrently cannot be made to pay the fine twice for the same transaction.
Are Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act separate offences?
Yes. The Court held that they are independent offences carrying the punishment provided for the main offence, so separate punishment is legally permissible.
Why was Hem Raj released?
Because he had already served the default imprisonment, and he could not be made to pay the fine a second time under concurrent sentences.
Conclusion
Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2026) 04 SC CK 0462 balances two principles: the NDPS Act may treat allied conduct as separate offences, but a person cannot be punished twice over through duplicated fines when the sentences are meant to run together.
Practical takeaway: In multi-section NDPS convictions arising from one recovery, check the fine and default terms; where sentences are concurrent, a double fine can be challenged.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com