1. Convicts challenged the legality of separate sentencing and cumulative fine imposition for offences involving the transportation of narcotics in a single transaction under the NDPS Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Hem Raj – Appellant
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19691 of 2025]
Decided On : 08-04-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroop Anad Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravideep Badyal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tavleen Singh, Adv. Ms. Vallabhi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Jogindar Mann, Adv. Ms. Kiran Verma, Adv. Ms. Bhagyashree Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroop Anad Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravideep Badyal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tavleen Singh, Adv. Ms. Vallabhi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Jogindar Mann, Adv. Ms. Kiran Verma, Adv. Ms. Bhagyashree Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Conspiracy is an independent offence.(2) Conviction is possible for two offences which may be inclusive or interdependent arising out of same course of action or transaction.(3) When sentence is directed to run concurrently, appellant cannot be made to pay fine twice.
Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Sections 25 and 29 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 116 – Seizure of Charas – Conviction and sentence – Conspiracy is an independent offence – When offence under Section 25 is entirely possible to be committed separately as an independent offence to remain distinct in itself, and when offences of abetment and criminal conspiracy mentioned in Section 29 are in themselves independent offences, it is entirely logical to deduce and conclude that commission of these offences once established, would attract separate punishment and sentence – Conviction is possible for two offences which may be inclusive or interdependent arising out of same course of action or transaction – However, since offences committed for their kind and nature, would be distinct offences, would entail separate punishment – Even while imposing separate punishment for such different offences, it would be rule of wisdom to be followed by court that in such cases, sentence is made to run concurrently – In instant case, sentences are ordered to run concurrently – Appellant has undergone total 11 years of imprisonment till January 2026, which includes default imprisonment – Since appellant has suffered default imprisonment also and that he is not required to pay double amount of fine, he is entitled to be released from jail. (Paras 5.8.1., 6, 8.1 and 10)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 53[Section 4 of BNS] – Fine – Although default imprisonment clause is taken out of concept of sentence and is treated as penalty for not observing sentence of fine, amount of fine imposed required to be paid by convict is a sentence and has to be treated as part of sentence – Section 53, IPC also includes fine as a punishment to be part of sentence – As such, when sentence is directed to run concurrently, appellant cannot be made to pay fine twice. (Para 9.3)
(C) Interpretation of Statute – Rules of Construction – Doctrine of reference is a well-recognised tool of legislation – It is a process whereby legislature refers to provision of one statute in provisions of other statute to be read into other statute – In that way, provision in one statute becomes part of provisions of other statute in which it is referred to – Analogous is doctrine of incorporation, which bears fine distinction with doctrine of reference where provision from one statute is bodily lifted to be incorporated to be part of provision in another enactment. (Para 7.1)
Facts of the case:
High Court partly allowed appeal by modifying sentence part of judgment of Special Judge by reducing substantive sentence of appellant to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment from 12 years of rigorous imprisonment, separately imposed for offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and also under Sections 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in respect of any other offence.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - (!) Convicts were charged and convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 29 NDPS Act; sentencing challenged for separate punishment. - (!) Court notes two grounds of appeal: separate conviction for 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25/29; and separate/improper fine where sentences run concurrently. - (!) Discussion on how Section 25 and 29 involve punishment "for the offence" by reference to the main offence, allowing separate punishment. - (!) Doctrine: punishment under Sections 25 and 29 can be separate but may run concurrently to avoid double jeopardy; they can be independent offences. - (!) Court imposes concurrent running of sentences to avoid double punishment. - (!) - (!) Fine constitutes part of sentence under Section 53 IPC; cannot be paid twice when sentences run concurrently; appellant entitled to release after liquor total imprisonment 11 years including default imprisonment. - (!) - (!) Judgment directs release of the appellant after considering total imprisonment and non-payment of double fine.
How to determine whether separate punishment under NDPS Act Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and Sections 25 and 29 can be imposed for offences arising from the same transaction?
What is the correctness of awarding separate fines for offences under Section 20 and under Sections 25 and 29 when sentences run concurrently?
What are the permissible limits on concurrent sentencing and fine imposition to avoid double jeopardy and to comply with IPC Section 53 in the NDPS Act context?
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
- possession and transportation of contraband
- abetment and criminal conspiracy
- permitting premises or conveyance for offences
-
sentencing principles
- concurrent vs cumulative sentences
- imprisonment in default of fine
-
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
-
statutory interpretation
- doctrine of reference and incorporation (Para 7)
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended that separate sentencing for offences arising from one transaction constitutes double punishment, while the State argued distinct offences warrant independent sentencing and fines under the NDPS Act. (Para 4 )
3. The Court observed that while Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act prescribe distinct offences, they may be part of an indivisible transaction requiring concurrent sentencing. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
4. Offences under Sections 25 and 29 are independent of the main offence, permitting separate punishment; however, concurrent sentencing is appropriate when offences arise from a single transaction. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. The court set aside cumulative fine requirements and ordered the appellant’s release after finding the served incarceration and penalty in default of fine sufficient to satisfy the sentence. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can separate punishments be imposed for offences under Section 20 and Sections 25/29 of the NDPS Act arising from the same transaction?
Yes, Sections 25 and 29 constitute independent offences. While the Act uses referral to the main offence for sentencing, these are distinct crimes. However, when these offences occur during the same transaction, courts should exercise wisdom by ordering the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently to avoid double punishment. (Para 6 , 8 )
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against common judgment and order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2020, in so far as the decision relates to Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020, which was the appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
2.1. The High Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence part of the judgment of learned Special Judge by reducing the substantive sentence of the appellant to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment from 12 years of rigorous imprisonment, separately imposed for the offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and also under Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.1 [Hereinafter, “NDPS Act”] Rest of the sentence awarded by the Special Judge remained unaffected.
2.2. The Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba (H.P.) decided Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2015 (NDPS Act) by its judgment dated 07.11.2019 against the present appellant Hem Raj, son of Shri Devi Singh and co-accused Kulwant, son of Shri Bhagwant. Both the accused including the appellant herein came to be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act.
2.2.1. After hearing the convicts on the quantum of sentence, learned Special Judge by the order dated 16.11.2019 sentenced both the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- each and in default of payment of the amount of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
2.2.2. In respect of offence punishable under Section 25 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the appellant and the co-convict were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of further period of one year each.
2.2.3. It was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. In the appeal preferred by appellant Hem Raj before the High Court as stated above, the sentence came to be reduced to 10 years from 12 years of rigorous imprisonment. The remainder part of the sentence stood confirmed as awarded by learned Special Judge.
2.3. As noted by this Court in order dated 28.11.2025, the assail to the judgment and order of the High Court in this appeal is on two grounds. Firstly, that the appellant could not have been convicted separately for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) on one hand and Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act on the other. Second ground has been that the fine sentence could not have been imposed separately for both the offences and that since the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, the appellant is not required to pay the double amount of fine.
3. Noticing the facts, on 22.12.2014, the police squad was exercising Nakabandi duty at Tunnuhatti Police Barrier in wee hours. At around 3.50 a.m., while checking the vehicles, a grey coloured Esteem car bearing registration No. PB-65A-9377 was seen coming from the side of Banikhet. The police party stopped the car for checking. The driver revealed his name to be Kulwant Singh who was also the registered owner of the car, and the appellant Hem Raj sitting on the front seat, were the two occupying the car. When driver Kulwant Singh opened the window glass, the smell of cannabis spread out.
3.1. Upon search of the said two persons and the vehicle, a blue coloured carry bag having transparent polythene packets containing black hard substance was found kept below the leg space of the front seat occupied by the appellant herein. The said blue coloured bag had in it eight transparent polythene packets containing black substance in round and stick shape. When it was checked with the drugs detection kit, the
