The analysis on the issue “Can Separate Convictions Under Sections 20, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act Arise From the Same Transaction?” is authored by A. Rangadham, Superintendent (AR), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad.
Charges:
Seizure of Charas 4.100 kgs from two persons travelling in a car. Charged with the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act
The Trial Court convicted the two persons involved in the case as follows:
- 12 years RI + Fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act
- 12 years RI + Fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- under Section 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act
- Both the sentences to run concurrently.
On Appeal to the High Court, 12 years RI was reduced to 10 years RI and the rest of the sentencing remained unchanged.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The Challenge:
- They could not have been convicted separately for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) on one hand and Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act on the other.
- Fine sentence could not have been imposed separately for both the offences and that since the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, the appellant is not required to pay the double amount of fine
The reasoning by the Counsel:
- the convictions arose from one indivisible transaction.
- no separate punishment was provided under Section 25 and Section 29 of the Act
- the offences contemplated under these Sections are merely in the nature of extension of the main offence i.e., 20(b)(ii)(C)
- the sentence awarded to the appellant amounted to double punishment which is prohibited under Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602
- when the sentences for the said offences were directed to run concurrently, the entire punishment including the fine should have a concurrent operation. ‘Punishments’ under Section 53, IPC includes both imprisonment and fine, therefore, treating imprisonment to be concurrent but treating the fine as cumulative would be illogical and would not be permissible
The Analysis and Findings by the Supreme Court:
- Sections 15 to 19, 20 to 24, 25A, 27, prescribe punishment and sentence separately for the offence related to contraband mentioned therein.
- Section 25 relates to the punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.
- Section 29 dealing with the punishment of abetment and criminal conspiracy
- In Section 25 and 29 it is mentioned as – be punishable with “the punishment provided for that offence”.
- Offences under Section 25 and 29 are distinct and independent offences.
- Hence, it is entirely logical to deduce and conclude that commission of these offences once established, would attract separate punishment and sentence.
- 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 provisions of Section 20, or as the case may be, vis-à-vis Sections 25 and 29 in the NDPS Act, when refers to the punishment under Section 20 conforming to the main offence, as the case may be, to be also the punishment under Section 25 and Section 29 of the Act, it also becomes legislation by incorporation, since provision in one section of the statute is made to be referred, to be read into, and to be applied in the provision of other sections of the same statute.
- Hence, the contention that no separate punishment and sentence is contemplated in respect of Section 25 and Section 29 of the Act cannot be accepted.
- The conviction is possible for two offences which may be inclusive or interdependent arising out of same course of action or the transaction. However, since the offences committed for their kind and nature, would be distinct offences, would entail separate punishment. Therefore, even while imposing separate punishment for such different offences, it would be the rule of wisdom to be followed by the court that in such cases, the sentence is made to run concurrently.
- The punishment and sentence should not result in double jeopardy.
- Section 53, IPC 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.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
