The Supreme Court has held that while offences such as criminal conspiracy and allowing use of premises or vehicles for drug crimes attract separate punishments, courts cannot impose double fines when sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria has clarified that allowing a vehicle or premises to be used for drug offences is a separate punishable act. Criminal conspiracy and abetment are independent offences, not merely extensions of the principal crime.
The bench held that these provisions operate through a principle known as “legislation by reference”, meaning they adopt the punishment prescribed for the main offence but still remain distinct offences warranting separate sentences.
The issue raised was whether separate punishments under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act could be imposed for a single transaction involving possession and transportation of narcotics.
The case dates back to December 22, 2014, when police intercepted a vehicle at a checkpoint in Himachal Pradesh and recovered over 4 kg of charas. The accused, Hem Raj and a co-convict, were charged under multiple provisions of the NDPS Act, including possession of commercial quantity and criminal conspiracy.
A trial court sentenced both to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The Himachal Pradesh High Court later reduced the imprisonment to 10 years but retained the fines and other aspects of the sentence.
Hem Raj approached the Supreme Court challenging the imposition of separate punishments and multiple fines.
The Supreme Court considered two central questions: Whether separate sentences can be imposed under Sections 20 (main offence), 25 (allowing use of vehicle/premises), and 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act. Whether fines imposed for multiple offences can be treated cumulatively when imprisonment runs concurrently.
The Court ruled that Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act create independent and distinct offences, even though they are connected to the main offence under Section 20.
While upholding separate punishments, the Court emphasized that in cases arising out of a single transaction, sentences should ordinarily run concurrently to avoid double punishment.
The Court noted that offences under Sections 25 and 29 are often “parasitic” or derivative, meaning they arise alongside the main offence and are part of the same factual matrix.
The court held that fine is a substantive part of punishment under criminal law. When sentences are ordered to run concurrently, the fine cannot be imposed multiple times for the same transaction.
The Court clarified that while default imprisonment for non-payment of fine is a penalty, the fine itself is part of the sentence and must align with the principle of concurrency.
The Court noted that the appellant had already undergone over 11 years of imprisonment, including default imprisonment for non-payment of fines. Since he could not be compelled to pay double fines, the Court held that he had effectively served his sentence and was entitled to release.
Case Details
Case Title: Hem Raj Versus The State Of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: JURISHOUR-675-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 19691 of 2025
Date: 08/04/2026
