Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1636
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Prashant Kumar Mishra, N.V. Anjaria, JJ
Hem Raj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No._______Of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Marwah
For the Respondents: Bimlesh Kumar Singh
Offenses under Section 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act are independent substantive crimes; while separate imprisonment sentences may run concurrently regarding a single transaction, imposing cumulative fines for the same transaction constitutes impermissible double punishment.
Headnote:The case concerns the interpretation of sentencing provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court, asserting that separate convictions and sentences for offenses under Section 20(b)(ii)
(C) and Sections 25 and 29 arising from a single transaction were impermissible and that concurrent sentencing should apply to fines as well. The Court determined that Sections 25 and 29 constitute independent offenses punishable as distinct acts despite their reliance on the punishment defined for the principal offense via legislation by reference. The central issue was whether separate sentences, including distinct fines, could be imposed for offenses arising from the same criminal transaction. The Court held that criminal conspiracy and abetment under Section 29, as well as permitting premises for offenses under Section 25, are substantive, independent offenses. Consequently, they attract separate punishments, though the Court emphasized that where offenses are parasitic or derivative of a single transaction, the rule of wisdom dictates running imprisonment sentences concurrently. It further clarified that while imprisonment can be concurrent, redundant or double fines for the same transaction are impermissible. The appeal is disposed of with the direction that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required to be detained for any other offense.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the background facts and procedural history of the sentencing appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
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 Signature Not Verified NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2026.04.08
17:00:18 IST Reason: 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, 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 colou
