Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Though separately punishable, the offences under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act could be parasitic and derivative – punishment and sentence should not result in double jeopardy – concurrent running of the sentence is to avoid double punishment – Section 53, IPC mentioned above also includes fine as a punishment to be part of sentence.
The concise facts of the case is that, the trial court 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 convicted both the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act and 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. In respect of the 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. 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. Hence, the Appeal.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, the offence of criminal conspiracy which is inherently covert and rarely leaves behind direct traces and whose existence could be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances, where any overt commission of act not always present, is seldom capable to be proved by direct evidence. Further, conspiracy is an independent offence and may be punishable even if the substantive offence committed by the conspirators does not ultimately materialise. Thus, criminal conspiracy, which is an independent offence, is so incorporated in Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Section 25 and Section 29 of the NDPS Act 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 legislature has referred to the punishment mentioned in the particular section to be referred to and applied for the purpose of punishment and sentence to be imposed under another section.
In addition to this, the punishment provided for the offence under Section 20 of the Act is mentioned by way of reference under Section 25 and Section 29 to be read into it in a similar way to be applied for the imposition. Though separately punishable, the offences under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act could be parasitic and derivative. The punishment and sentence should not result in double jeopardy. One of the objects of concurrent running of the sentence is to avoid double punishment. This principle would readily apply when two separate punishments are awarded, and sentences are imposed for two offences relatable to one set of facts. It would call for applying concurrent sufferance of punishment. Although the default imprisonment clause is taken out of the concept of sentence and is treated as penalty for not observing sentence of fine, the amount of fine imposed required to be paid by the convict is a sentence and has to be treated as part of sentence. Section 53, IPC mentioned above also includes fine as a punishment to be part of sentence. In that view when the sentence is directed to run concurrently, the appellant cannot be made to pay fine twice.
Supreme Court’s Decision
- Distinct Offenses: The Court clarified that Sections 25 and 29 are distinct, independent offenses, not just extensions of Section 20. Even though they adopt the punishment of the principal offense by legislative reference, they criminalize different acts (e.g., the act of facilitating a crime vs. the act of possessing the drugs). Therefore, imposing separate sentences is legally valid.
- Rule on Concurrent Fines: Crucially, the Court ruled that under Section 53 of the IPC, a fine is considered a form of punishment. When courts direct substantive prison sentences for multiple offenses arising from the same transaction to run concurrently to prevent double jeopardy, the fine component must also be concurrent. Forcing the appellant to pay duplicate fines for the same factual episode would amount to double punishment. Consequently, the appellant cannot be made to pay the fine twice.
Hem Raj Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 19691 of 2025 (2026 INSC 332)] - 08.04.2026