The Supreme Court of India has ruled that while separate punishments can be imposed for independent offences , the principle of concurrent sentencing must apply to both imprisonment and fines when the offences arise from a single transaction.
The Supreme Court in Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2026 INSC 332) delivered a significant ruling clarifying the sentencing framework under the NDPS Act, particularly concerning Sections 20, 25, and 29. The Court held that while separate punishments for these provisions are legally permissible, fines imposed for multiple offences cannot be duplicated when sentences are directed to run concurrently.
The case arose from the conviction of the appellant Hem Raj, who was found in possession of 4.1 kg of charas along with a co-accused. The trial court sentenced him to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with separate fines under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The High Court reduced the sentence to 10 years but upheld the separate imposition of fines for each offence.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge the conviction but limited his arguments to sentencing. He contended that Sections 25 and 29 do not prescribe independent punishments and merely extend liability for the principal offence under Section 20. Thus, awarding separate punishments amounted to double jeopardy and violated Section 71 IPC. It was further argued that once sentences run concurrently, fines must also operate concurrently.
Rejecting the appellant’s contention on separate punishment, the Court held that Sections 25 (allowing premises/vehicle for commission of offence) and 29 (abetment and conspiracy) are independent offences. The Court clarified that these provisions adopt the punishment of the principal offence through “legislation by reference.” Therefore, even though they do not prescribe a separate quantum of punishment, they attract the same punishment as the main offence and can be imposed independently.
The Court emphasized that offences under Sections 25 and 29 are distinct in nature. Section 25 penalizes a person who knowingly permits use of premises or conveyance for committing an NDPS offence, while Section 29 criminalizes abetment and conspiracy, both recognized as independent offences under criminal law. Hence, conviction and separate sentencing under these provisions are legally justified even if arising from the same transaction.
However, the Court introduced an important limitation. It observed that when offences arise from the same transaction, courts should ensure that sentences run concurrently to avoid double punishment. While imprisonment may run concurrently, the question arose whether fines could also be treated similarly.
On this issue, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellant. It held that “fine” is part of “sentence” under Section 53 IPC. Therefore, when sentences are ordered to run concurrently, fines cannot be imposed cumulatively. Imposing multiple fines would defeat the purpose of concurrent sentencing and amount to excessive punishment.
The Court further clarified that default imprisonment for non-payment of fine is not a sentence but a penalty. Since the appellant had already undergone over 11 years of imprisonment, including default imprisonment, and was not liable to pay double fines, the Court directed his immediate release.
This judgment is significant as it balances strict enforcement of NDPS provisions with protection against excessive punishment. It clarifies that while multiple convictions under NDPS Act provisions are permissible, sentencing must be structured carefully to avoid duplication, especially in cases arising from a single transaction.
Case Title: Hem Raj Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19691/2025
Date of Judgment: April 08, 2026
JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
.
