Latest JudgementNDPS Act, 1985

Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2026

The Court adopted a harmonious interpretation of sentencing principles, recognizing fine as an integral component of punishment.

Supreme Court of India·8 April 2026

NDPS Act, 1985

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

8 April 2026

Judges

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Justice N. V. Anjaria

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The appellant was convicted under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act for offences related to narcotic drugs.
The trial court imposed rigorous imprisonment along with a fine for each offence.
The High Court reduced the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, but imposed a fine of ₹1.20 lakh separately for each offence.
Additionally, one year of imprisonment was prescribed in case of default in payment of each fine.
The High Court directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.
The appellant had already served 11 years of imprisonment, which included the default imprisonment for non-payment of one fine.
The appellant challenged the imposition of separate fines for offences whose sentences were running concurrently before the Supreme Court.

Whether fine imposed for multiple offences can be treated separately when the sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently?
Whether offences under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act are distinct offences warranting separate punishments?

Fine, being part of punishment, must run concurrently with imprisonment when sentences are concurrent.
The appellant cannot be compelled to pay fine twice.
The appellant was not liable to pay the second fine or undergo further default imprisonment.
The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant, considering the sentence already undergone.

The Court adopted a harmonious interpretation of sentencing principles, recognizing fine as an integral component of punishment.
It reinforced that concurrency applies to the entire sentence, not just imprisonment.
The judgment prevents excessive and disproportionate punishment, ensuring fairness in sentencing.
By distinguishing between separate offences and execution of punishment, the Court maintained doctrinal clarity.
The ruling strengthens the principle that punishment must not be duplicative when concurrency is granted.
It has significant implications for criminal sentencing jurisprudence, especially in cases involving multiple offences.