Separate Sentences Under NDPS Sections 25 and 29 Valid, but No Double Fine When Sentences Run Concurrently

On 22.12.2014 police at the Tunnuhatti barrier stopped a car driven by its owner, with the appellant in the front seat, and found 4.1 kg of charas in a bag below his seat (para 3). The Special Judge, Chamba convicted both men under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 25 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, imposing 12 years' rigorous imprisonment and a ₹1.2 lakh fine, with one year in default, for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently (para 2). The Himachal Pradesh High Court cut the imprisonment to 10 years (para 2). The appellant challenged the separate conviction and the double fine (para 2).

Sections 15 to 24, 25A and 27 each prescribe their own punishment, while Sections 25 and 29 punish their offences with 'the punishment provided for that offence' (para 5). Allowing premises or a conveyance to be used for an offence is a distinct offence under Section 25, and abetment and criminal conspiracy are independent offences under Section 29, as Gurdeep Singh and Noor Mohammad confirm (para 5). As occupier of the car the appellant fell within Section 25, and that conviction was not challenged (para 5). Once established, these offences attract separate punishment; borrowing the main offence's punishment is legislation by reference, not a bar on a separate sentence (paras 6-7). As they usually arise from the same transaction, courts should, as a rule of wisdom, run the sentences concurrently to avoid double punishment (para 8). A fine is part of the sentence under Section 53 IPC, while default imprisonment is a penalty (Shahejadkhan); when sentences run concurrently, the fine cannot be exacted twice (para 9).