The Supreme Court has clarified that convictions under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, constitute distinct offences and may attract separate terms of imprisonment. However, the Court emphatically held that when sentences are ordered to run concurrently, the fine imposed under each conviction must also be treated as concurrent, not cumulative, to prevent double punishment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Hem Raj, was convicted alongside co-accused Kulwant Singh for offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 25 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case arose from the seizure of 4 kg 100 g of charas from a vehicle in which both accused were travelling. The appellant was seated in the front passenger seat; the vehicle was registered in the name of the co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the appellant knowingly permitted the vehicle’s use for transporting narcotics and was part of a criminal conspiracy.
Key Facts
- On 22.12.2014, at approximately 3:50 a.m., police conducting Nakabandi duty at Tunnuhatti Police Barrier stopped a grey Esteem car (PB-65A-9377) driven by Kulwant Singh.
- Upon opening the window, the smell of cannabis was detected.
- A blue carry bag beneath the front passenger seat (occupied by the appellant) contained eight transparent polythene packets of black hard substance.
- The substance was identified as charas weighing 4 kg 100 g, classified as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
- Both accused were arrested and charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
- The chargesheet was filed on 14.08.2015.
- The appellant was not the registered owner of the vehicle.
- The appellant had no prior criminal record.
Procedural History
- 07.11.2019: Special Judge, Chamba, convicted both accused and sentenced them to 12 years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), and 12 years under Section 25 read with Section 29, with a fine of Rs. 1,20,000 each for each offence.
- 16.11.2019: Sentences ordered to run concurrently; default imprisonment of one year for non-payment of fine was imposed for each offence.
- 05.12.2023: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020 (appellant’s appeal) and Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2020, reduced the substantive sentence from 12 years to 10 years for both convictions, but upheld the separate imposition of fines.
- 28.11.2025: Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal.
- 08.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Quashing of separate sentences under Sections 25 and 29, arguing they were not independent offences.
- Cancellation of the cumulative fine of Rs. 2,40,000, contending that since sentences ran concurrently, fines must also be concurrent.
- Immediate release, citing 11 years of incarceration (including remission and default imprisonment) as of January 2026.
The Legal Issue
Can a person be separately sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 25 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act for offences arising from a single transaction, and if so, must the fines imposed under each conviction be paid cumulatively or concurrently?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mr. Ajay Marwah, counsel for the appellant, argued that Sections 25 and 29 do not prescribe independent punishments but merely incorporate the punishment of the principal offence under Section 20 by reference. He contended that the legislature intended these provisions to extend liability, not to create separate penal consequences. He relied on Section 71 of the IPC, which prohibits double punishment for the same act, and argued that imposing two separate fines of Rs. 1,20,000 each amounted to double jeopardy. He further submitted that the appellant, as a passenger and not the owner, could not be said to have “knowingly permitted” the vehicle’s use under Section 25. He highlighted that the appellant had already served 11 years, including default imprisonment, and that the cumulative fine was financially oppressive.
For the Respondent
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the State, argued that Section 25 creates a distinct offence of permitting premises or conveyance to be used for commission of a narcotic offence, and Section 29 creates a distinct offence of abetment or criminal conspiracy. He cited Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra to establish that conspiracy and permitting use are independent offences. He emphasized that the NDPS Act’s legislative intent was to impose stringent penalties for drug trafficking, and that the High Court’s reduction of sentence from 12 to 10 years already reflected judicial leniency. He relied on Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat to argue that default imprisonment is a penalty, not a sentence, and therefore does not affect the validity of separate fines.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Chapter IV of the NDPS Act, focusing on the language of Sections 20, 25, and 29. It observed that while Sections 15 to 24 explicitly prescribe punishment ranges, Sections 25 and 29 use the phrase “punishable with the punishment provided for that offence.” This, the Court held, is not an omission but a deliberate legislative technique of reference and incorporation.
"Section 25 and Section 29 insofar as they provide that the punishment for the respective offences mentioned therein is same which would be for the principal offence, is an instance of legislation by reference."
The Court affirmed that the offences under Sections 25 and 29 are independent. Permitting a conveyance for narcotics trafficking and conspiring to commit the offence are distinct acts with separate elements, even if they arise from the same transaction. The Court relied on Gurdev Singh and Noor Mohammad to confirm that conspiracy and permitting use are substantive offences under Indian law.
However, the Court drew a critical distinction between imprisonment and fine. While multiple terms of imprisonment may be imposed and run concurrently, the fine is a single monetary obligation. Section 53 of the IPC lists fine as a form of punishment, and the Court held that treating fines as cumulative when sentences are concurrent violates the principle against double punishment.
"When the sentence is directed to run concurrently, the appellant cannot be made to pay fine twice."
The Court further clarified that default imprisonment for non-payment of fine is not a sentence but a penalty, as held in Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan. Since the appellant had already served 11 years - including time served for default imprisonment - he had effectively served the full term of his imprisonment obligations.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded on the issue of fines. The Supreme Court set aside the separate imposition of fines under Sections 25 and 29, holding that only one fine of Rs. 1,20,000 shall be payable. The 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under each conviction remains valid but runs concurrently. The appellant, having already undergone 11 years of incarceration including default imprisonment, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless detained in connection with any other offence. Costs of Rs. 25,000 are awarded to the appellant.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Separate Convictions Are Valid But Fines Must Be Single
- Practitioners must now argue that while multiple convictions under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act are legally permissible, the fine must be imposed only once, even if multiple offences are proved.
- Courts must explicitly state whether fines are cumulative or concurrent; silence will be construed as concurrent.
- In appeals, challenge cumulative fines as violative of Section 71 IPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Ownership Is Not Required for Section 25 Liability
- The term “occupier” or “use” under Section 25 extends beyond legal ownership. A person in actual control or possession of a conveyance at the time of offence can be held liable.
- Defence arguments based solely on non-ownership of the vehicle will not succeed; focus must shift to whether the accused knowingly permitted its use.
Default Imprisonment Does Not Extend Sentence Duration
- Default imprisonment for non-payment of fine is a penalty, not part of the sentence. Time served under default imprisonment counts toward the total incarceration.
- If a convict has served the full term of imprisonment (including default), they must be released even if the fine remains unpaid, unless another valid detention exists.
Sentencing Strategy Must Reflect Proportionality
- Courts must avoid mechanical imposition of maximum fines. The principle of proportionality requires that fines be commensurate with the nature of the offence and the accused’s means.
- In multi-conviction cases, the sentencing court should impose a single fine equal to the highest fine prescribed under any one provision, not the sum of all.
