HEM RAJversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

                  [2026] 5 S.C.R. 67 : 2026 INSC 332

                               Hem Raj
                                   v.
                    The State of Himachal Pradesh
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 2026)
                                 08 April 2026
           [Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       (i) What is contended by the appellant is that punishment imposed
       u/s.20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
       on the appellant would take care of the punishment for the conviction
       u/s.25 and s.29 of the Act, which according to the appellant, are
       only part of substantive offence. Given the legislative mandate,
       whether the said contention has to be negatived; (ii) Whether the
       fine imposed separately as part of the punishment of two offences
       would be liable to be treated concurrent along with the sentences
       of imprisonment.

                                   Headnotes†
       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
       ss.20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 – Prosecution case that a blue coloured
       carry bag containing charas of the quantity of 4 kgs.100 gms
       was found in possession of two accused persons including
       appellant herein – Both the accused including the appellant
       came to be convicted for commission of offence punishable
       u/ss.20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 r/w. s.29 of NDPS Act – Special Judge
       by the order dated 16.11.2019 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 u/s.20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – In respect of
       offence punishable u/s.25 r/w. s.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 fine of Rs.1,20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine,
       to undergo rigorous imprisonment of further period of one


* Author
68                                                           [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      year each – It was directed that both the sentences shall run
      concurrently – What is contended is that punishment imposed
      u/s.20 on the appellant would take care of the punishment for
      the conviction u/s.25 and s.29 of the Act, which according to the
      appellant, are only part of substantive offence – Correctness:
      Held: Reading ss.15 to 19, 21 to 24, 25A, 27 as well as s.20 which
      is relevant to the present case, it would be noticed that all these
      sections prescribed punishment and sentence separately for the
      offence related to contraband mentioned therein – s.25 however
      says that a person who is found to be owner or occupier or having
      the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place,
      animal or conveyance, is found to be knowingly permitting it to
      be used for the commission by any other person of an offence
      punishable under any provision of this Act shall be punishable with
      “the punishment provided for that offence” – Similar phraseology
      is employed in respect of punishment in s.29 which says that
      a person found guilty of abetment and criminal conspiracy to
      commit an offence under Chapter IV “be punishable with the
      punishment provided for the offence”, notwithstanding anything
      contained in s.116 of the IPC – Various sections in Chapter IV
      of the Act relate to different independent offences pertaining to
      the contraband – s.25 and s.29, which are part of the group of
      sections, also speak of the offences – Allowing premises etc. to be
      used for commission of an offence is conceived by the legislature
      to be a separate offence and engrafted in the Act accordingly
      as an independent offence u/s.25 – Criminal conspiracy, which
      is an independent offence, is so incorporated in s.29 of the
      NDPS Act – Given the legislative mandate, the contention has
      to be negatived that no separate punishment and sentence is
      contemplated in respect of s.25 and s.29 of the Act – When the
      offence u/s.25 is entirely possible to be committed separately as
      an independent offence to remain distinct in itself, and when the
      offences of abetment and criminal conspiracy mentioned in s.29
      are in themselves independent offences, it is entirely logical to
      deduce and conclude that commission of these offences once
      established, would attract separate punishment and sentence –
      It may happen in large number of cases that offences u/ss.25
      and 29, as the case may be, take place along with the other
      substantive offences mentioned in Chapter IV, in course of the
      same transaction – The two offences may be part of an inclusive
      transaction – In other words, though separately punishable, the
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                            69

                Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


     offences u/ss.25 and 29 could be parasitic and derivative – The
     conviction is possible for two offences which may be inclusive
     or interdependent arising out of same course of action or the
     transaction – 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. [Paras 5.3, 5.6, 5.8.2, 6, 7.2, 8, 8.1]

     Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
     ss.20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.53 – Appellant
     submitted that due to his poor condition, he is not in a position
     to pay the fine – Whether the fine imposed separately as part
     of the punishment of two offences would be liable to be treated
     concurrent along with the sentences of imprisonment:
     Held: In the present case, the appellant is sentenced by the
     High Court to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment, and to
     pay fine of ₹1,20,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous
     imprisonment for one year – This is a default imprisonment – What
     it implies is that 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 – s.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 – It is not in dispute that the appellant
     has undergone total 11 years of imprisonment till January 2026,
     which includes the default imprisonment – Since the appellant has
     suffered the default imprisonment also and that he is not required
     to pay double amount of fine, he is entitled to be released from
     the jail. [Paras 9.2, 9.3, 10]

                              Case Law Cited
     Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat [2012] 8
     SCR 1177 : (2013) 1 SCC 570; Shantilal v. State of M.P. [2007] 10
     SCR 727 : (2007) 11 SCC 243; Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab
     [2021] 4 SCR 439 : (2021) 6 SCC 558; Gurdeep Singh v. State
     of Punjab (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1669; State (NCT of Delhi) v.
     Navjot Sandhu [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 79 : (2005) 11 SCC 600; Noor
     Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra [1971]
     1 SCR 119 : (1970) 1 SCC 696 – referred to.
70                                                        [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                               List of Acts
      Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Narcotic
      Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

                            List of Keywords
      Section 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act; Section 25, NDPS Act; Section
      29, NDPS Act; Same Transaction; Concurrent Sentences; Double
      Punishment; Doctrine of Reference; Default Imprisonment;
      Commercial Quantity; Independent Offenses; No Double Fine;
      Penalty; Sentence.

                           Case Arising From
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      1833 of 2026
      From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2023 of the High Court
      of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CRA No. 93 of 2020.

                         Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant(s):
      Ajay Marwah, Swaroop Anad Mishra, Mrigank Bhardwaj, Ms. Dhriti
      Sharma, Rahul Kumar.
      Advs. for the Respondent(s):
      D K Thakur, Rohit Kumar, Bimlesh Kumar Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

      N.V. Anjaria, J.

      Leave granted.
2.    The present appeal is directed against common judgment and order
      dated 05.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
      in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No. 230 of
      2020, in so far as the decision relates to Criminal Appeal No. 93 of
      2020, which was the appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
      2.1. The High Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the
           sentence part of the judgment of learned Special Judge by
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                           71

                    Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


             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, 19851. Rest of the sentence
             awarded by the Special Judge remained unaffected.
     2.2. The Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba
          (H.P.) decided Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2015 (NDPS Act) 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. Both the accused including the appellant herein came
          to be convicted for commission of offence punishable under
          Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act.
             2.2.1. After hearing the convicts on the quantum of sentence,
                    learned Special Judge by the order dated 16.11.2019
                    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.
             2.2.2. In respect of 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.
             2.2.3. It was directed that both the sentences shall run
                    concurrently. In the appeal preferred by appellant
                    Hem Raj before the High Court as stated above, the
                    sentence came to be reduced to 10 years from 12
                    years of rigorous imprisonment. The remainder part of
                    the sentence stood confirmed as awarded by learned
                    Special Judge.



1   Hereinafter, “NDPS Act”.
72                                                        [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      2.3. As noted by this Court in order dated 28.11.2025, the assail
           to the judgment and order of the High Court in this appeal is
           on two grounds. Firstly, that the appellant 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. Second ground has been that the 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.
3.    Noticing the facts, on 22.12.2014, the police squad was exercising
      Nakabandi duty at Tunnuhatti Police Barrier in wee hours. At around
      3.50 a.m., while checking the vehicles, a grey coloured Esteem car
      bearing registration No. PB-65A-9377 was seen coming from the
      side of Banikhet. The police party stopped the car for checking. The
      driver revealed his name to be Kulwant Singh who was also the
      registered owner of the car, and the appellant Hem Raj sitting on
      the front seat, were the two occupying the car. When driver Kulwant
      Singh opened the window glass, the smell of cannabis spread out.
      3.1. Upon search of the said two persons and the vehicle, a blue
           coloured carry bag having transparent polythene packets
           containing black hard substance was found kept below the leg
           space of the front seat occupied by the appellant herein. The
           said blue coloured bag had in it eight transparent polythene
           packets containing black substance in round and stick shape.
           When it was checked with the drugs detection kit, the same
           was found to be charas of the quantity of 4 kgs.100 gms.
      3.2. After undertaking the necessary procedure both the accused
           were nabbed and were charged with the offence punishable
           under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 29 of the
           NDPS Act in the chargesheet filed on 14.08.2015.
4.    Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajay Marwah while not
      challenging the conviction, highlighting the limited yet substantial
      challenge to the sentence imposed, submitted that the courts below
      were not justified in imposing separate punishments for the offences
      under Section 20 as well as under Section 25 read with Section
      29 of the NDPS Act, despite the fact that both the convictions
      arose from one indivisible transaction. Learned counsel took the
      court through Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Act to pinpoint that no
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                            73

                     Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


      separate punishment was provided under Section 25 and Section
      29 of the Act.
      4.1. It was additionally submitted that as borne out from chargesheet,
           the registered owner of the vehicle was co-accused Kulwant
           Singh and not the appellant herein, therefore, it was submitted,
           in absence of ownership, the ‘occupation’ and ‘control’ over the
           vehicle was not of the appellant and that he could not have
           “knowingly permitted its use” . On such basis it was sought to
           be submitted that the very foundation of invoking Section 25 of
           the Act against the appellant was lacking and that the appellant
           could not have been convicted under Section 25.
              4.1.1. It was next submitted without prejudice that even if
                     the appellant could be booked for the offence under
                     Sections 25 and 29, the said provision does not prescribe
                     an independent punishment or sentence. According
                     to the learned counsel for the appellant, the offences
                     contemplated under these Sections are merely in the
                     nature of extension of the main offence in the nature
                     of commission of supplemented act creating vicarious
                     liability with the principal offence, which was under
                     Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act. It was submitted that the
                     sentence awarded to the appellant amounted to double
                     punishment which is prohibited under Section 71 of the
                     Indian Penal Code, 18602 as well.
              4.1.2. It was the next submission on behalf of the appellant
                     that when the sentences for the said offences were
                     directed to run concurrently, the entire punishment
                     including the fine should have a concurrent operation.
                     In this regard it was submitted that ‘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.
              4.1.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due
                     to poor condition, the appellant is not in a position to


2   Hereinafter, “IPC”.
74                                                          [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                   pay the fine. It was submitted that till January 2026, the
                   appellant has already suffered incarceration for about
                   11 years including the remission, as indicated in the
                   custody certificate.
      4.2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State
           Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh refuted the arguments advanced on
           behalf of the appellant to submit that FIR No. 140 of 2014 dated
           22.12.2014 was registered against the appellant and the co-
           convict which was for the offences punishable under Sections
           20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act for possessing, transporting and
           commissioning the crime with criminal conspiracy, to have in the
           car below the front driver seat 4 kgs and 100 gms of Charas
           and that both the persons came to be convicted for the said
           offence, the appellant having not challenged the said conviction.
           4.2.1. It was submitted that the High Court considering the
                  aspect that appellant had already undergone 9 years of
                  imprisonment and further that there was no complaint
                  in the jail conduct of the appellant, the substantive
                  sentence came to be reduced to 10 years from 12 years
                  for the offences committed under Section 20 as well as
                  25 and 29 of the Act.
           4.2.2. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted
                  that the sentence prescribed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) is
                  of rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years which
                  may extend to 20 years and fine to be not less than Rs.
                  1 lakh extendable to Rs. 2 lakh. It was highlighted that
                  the commercial quantity of Charas was found to be in
                  possession of the accused persons which was proved
                  in the trial leading to conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)
                  (C) of the Act. The car was used for transportation of
                  narcotics, submitted learned counsel for the respondent,
                  the offence attracted Section 25 read with Section 29,
                  which provisions prescribed for awarding same sentence
                  as of the main offence.
           4.2.3. It was emphasised that the appellant was “occupier”
                  of the car from whom the contraband was found and
                  recovered and both acted in criminal conspiracy as held
                  by the courts below. It was submitted that therefore the
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                           75

                  Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


                        conviction and imposition of sentence under the said
                        sections separately done is justified. Learned counsel
                        for the respondent submitted that there is no error in
                        imposition of separate fine amounts which is part of
                        sentence.
            4.2.4. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that
                   the sentence awarded is in consonance with the provision
                   of the Section 65 of the IPC which provides that the term
                   for which the court may direct the offender to be in prison
                   in default of payment of fine shall not exceed up to 1/4th
                   of the term of imprisonment which is the imprisonment
                   maximum fixed for the offence if the offence is punishable
                   with imprisonment as well as with fine.
            4.2.5. By relying on the decision of this Court in Shahejadkhan
                   Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat3, it was
                   submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that
                   the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is
                   not a sentence, but it is a penalty which a person incurs
                   on account of non-payment of fine. Same principle was
                   sought to be highlighted from another decision of this
                   Court in Shantilal v. State of M.P.4 It was submitted
                   that the minimum sentence prescribed is 10 years of
                   rigorous imprisonment, therefore no option is available
                   but to impose such minimum sentence in the list, which
                   is done by the High Court.
            4.2.6. Learned counsel for the respondent proceeded to
                   submit about deleterious impact of narcotic drugs and
                   the activities in dealing with the narcotic drugs on the
                   society and that how the menace of drug addiction has
                   the tendency of destroying the life of an individual and
                   the derailing the quality of the society to have the effect
                   on the generations to come, by pressing into service
                   the observation of this Court in Gurdev Singh v. State
                   of Punjab5.


3   (2013) 1 SCC 570
4   (2007) 11 SCC 243
5   (2021) 6 SCC 558
76                                                          [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


5.    In order to find an answer as to whether separate sentence for the
      offence under Section 20 on one hand and, on the other hand, for the
      offences committed under Sections 25 and 29 of the Act is permissible
      to be awarded and whether offences under Sections 25 and 29
      could be considered as part of the main offence under Section 20,
      and therefore not attracting separate punishment and sentence, it is
      necessary to consider various provisions in Chapter IV of the NDPS
      Act 1985, titled as “Offences and Penalties”. In different Sections,
      the punishment for contravention of different kinds of contrabands
      prohibited under the Act is considered.
      5.1. Section 15 of the Act is about punishment for contravention in
           relation to poppy straw, whereas punishment for contravention
           in relation to coca plant and coca leaves is dealt in Section 16.
           Punishment for contravention in relation to prepared opium in
           Section 17 whereas punishment for contravention in relation to
           opium poppy and opium is contemplated in Section 18.
           5.1.1. The measure of sentence in Sections 15, 17 and
                  18 is made dependent upon whether the quantity
                  involved is small quantity or the quantity lesser than
                  commercial but greater than small quantity or whether
                  the contravention involves commercial quantity as the
                  case may be. Section 16 as well as Section 19 provide
                  for punishment for embezzlement of opium by cultivator.
                  In the provisions from Section 15 onwards, the specific
                  punishment of the term of imprisonment, is expressly
                  provided for.
           5.1.2. Similar is the punishment for contravention in relation
                  to manufactured drugs and preparations under Section
                  21, wherein also the specific punishment is provided for,
                  depending upon the quantity of the contraband involved.
                  Provision of Section 22 is in respect of punishment for
                  contravention in relation to psychotropic substances
                  whereas Section 23 is for punishment for illegal import
                  into India, export from India, or transhipments of narcotic
                  drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 24 is about
                  punishment for external dealings in narcotic drugs and
                  psychotropic substances in contravention of Section 20.
                  For the offences under these sections also, punishment
                  is expressly and specifically provided.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                          77

                Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


     5.2. In the present case, the commission of offence under Section
          20(b)(ii)(C) is established against the appellant convict. Section
          20 which is in respect for punishment for contravention in relation
          to cannabis plant and cannabis reads as under,
           ‘20. Punishment for contravention in relation to
           cannabis plant and cannabis.—Whoever, in contravention
           of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or
           condition of licence granted thereunder,—
                (a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
                (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells,
                purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports
                inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,— (i)
                where such contravention relates to clause (a) with
                rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend
                to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which
                may extend to one lakh rupees; and
           (ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),—
                (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous
                imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
                year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand
                rupees, or with both;
                (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial
                quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous
                imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
                years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh
                rupees;
                (C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous
                imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
                ten years but which may extend to twenty years and
                shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less
                than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two
                lakh rupees:
           Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in
           the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.’
           5.2.1. The conviction against the appellant is also recorded
                  under Sections 25 and 29 of the Act. Section 25 relates
78                                                  [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                  Supreme Court Reports


             to the punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be
             used for commission of an offence. The said section
             is extracted hereinbelow,
               ‘25. Punishment for allowing premises,
               etc., to be used for commission of an
               offence.-Whoever, being the owner or occupier
               or having the control or use of any house,
               room, enclosure, space, place, animal or
               conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used
               for the commission by any other person of an
               offence punishable under any provision of this
               Act, shall be punishable with the punishment
               provided for that offence.’
      5.2.2. Section 29 dealing with the punishment of abetment
             and criminal conspiracy, is reproduced hereinbelow,
               ‘29. Punishment for abetment and criminal
               conspiracy.—(1) Whoever abets, or is a
               party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an
               offence punishable under this Chapter, shall,
               whether such offence be or be not committed in
               consequence of such abetment or in pursuance
               of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding
               anything contained in section 116 of the Indian
               Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with
               the punishment provided for the offence.
               (2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal
               conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the
               meaning of this section, who, in India, abets
               or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the
               commission of any act in a place without and
               beyond India which—
               (a) would constitute an offence if committed
               within India; or
               (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence
               relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic
               substances having all the legal conditions
               required to constitute it such an offence the
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                         79

                Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


                     same as or analogous to the legal conditions
                     required to constitute it an offence punishable
                     under this Chapter, if committed within India.’
     5.3. Reading Sections 15 to 19, 21 to 24, 25A, 27 as well as
          Section 20 which is relevant to the present case, it would be
          noticed that all these sections prescribed punishment and
          sentence separately for the offence related to contraband
          mentioned therein. Section 25 however says that a person
          who is found to be owner or occupier or having the control or
          use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or
          conveyance, is found to be knowingly permitting it to be used for
          the commission by any other person of an offence punishable
          under any provision of this Act shall be punishable with “the
          punishment provided for that offence”. Similar phraseology is
          employed in respect of punishment in Section 29 which says
          that a person found guilty of abetment and criminal conspiracy
          to commit an offence under Chapter IV “be punishable with the
          punishment provided for the offence”, notwithstanding anything
          contained in Section 116 of the IPC.
     5.4. The argument is sought to be founded on the variation of
          language in Section 20 (as also noticeable in other sections
          mentioned above) vis-a-vis Sections 25 and 29 that since
          Section 20 specifically provides for a particular punishment
          and Sections 25 and 29 only says that punishment for the
          said offences which may be imposed would be the same “as
          provided for that offence”, the conviction under Sections 25 and
          29 could not have attracted a separate and distinct punishment.
          What is contended is that punishment imposed under Section
          20 on the appellant would take care of the punishment for the
          conviction under Section 25 and Section 29 of the Act, which
          according to learned counsel of the appellant, are only part of
          substantive offence.
     5.5. The submission namely that the appellant could not have been
          held to have committed offence under Section 25 of the Act in
          as much as the appellant was only sitting in the front seat in the
          car belonging to the other person – the co-convict, therefore,
          could not have been said to have ‘knowingly permitted’ the car
          to be used for the commission of offence by that another person,
80                                                        [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


           may be dealt with. The submission which looks attractive at the
           first blush, has no substance when Section 25 is read carefully.
           5.5.1. The provision contains the words “occupier” as well as
                  “use of any house, space, conveyance, etc. by person”.
                  The appellant was an occupier of the car. In capacity of
                  occupier the appellant could be said to have committed
                  the crime under Section 25. Section 25 could be applied
                  to operate in two ways. In any view, along with Section
                  25, conviction is also recorded under Section 29. The
                  conviction is not challenged.
      5.6. There exists an apparent fallacy in what is sought to be
           canvassed that separate sentence is not permissible to be
           awarded. Various sections in Chapter IV of the Act relate to
           different independent offences pertaining to the contraband.
           Section 25 and Section 29, which are part of the group of
           sections, also speak of the offences. Allowing premises etc.
           to be used for commission of an offence is conceived by the
           legislature to be a separate offence and engrafted in the Act
           accordingly as an independent offence under Section 25.
           5.6.1. In a given case, an offender may have permitted the
                  other person to use the house, room, space, place,
                  animal or conveyance etc. to facilitate the commission
                  of any offence under the Act. This conduct would fall
                  squarely within Section 25 to become a distinct and
                  independent offence by that person who so permits
                  the use of house, conveyance etc. for the purpose of
                  committing an offence by the other person.
      5.7. Looking at Section 29, it speaks of punishment for the offence
           of abetment and criminal conspiracy. An abetment of a thing
           is an independent offence mentioned in the IPC. Section 116,
           IPC mentions about the abetment of offence punishable with
           imprisonment - if offence be or be not committed.
           5.7.1. Section 116, IPC is relevant to be noticed as under,
                     ‘116. Abetment of offence punishable
                     with imprisonment—if offence be not
                     committed.— Whoever abets an offence
                     punishable with imprisonment shall, if that
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                              81

                  Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


                         offence be not committed in consequence of
                         the abetment, and no express provision is
                         made by this Code for the punishment of such
                         abetment, be punished with imprisonment of
                         any description provided for that offence for a
                         term which may extend to one-fourth part of the
                         longest term provided for that offence; or with
                         such fine as is provided for that offence, or with
                         both; if abettor or person abetted be a public
                         servant whose duty it is to prevent offence.—
                         and if the abettor or the person abetted is a
                         public servant, whose duty it is to prevent the
                         commission of such offence, the abettor shall be
                         punished with imprisonment of any description
                         provided for that offence, for a term which may
                         extend to one-half of the longest term provided
                         for that offence, or with such fine as is provided
                         for the offence, or with both.’
            5.7.2. Now, Section 29 says that “notwithstanding anything
                   contained in Section 116 of the IPC, be punishable
                   with the punishment provided for the offence”. What it
                   contemplates is that whoever abets the offence under
                   the NDPS Act in Chapter IV shall be punished for the
                   ‘punishment provided for the offence’. In other words,
                   the fetter and limitation about the term of imprisonment
                   mentioned in Section 116 IPC, is done away with in
                   relation to offence of abetment under Section 29 of
                   the NDPS Act.
     5.8. 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. Section 120B, IPC is
          the punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy.
            5.8.1. It is well settled that conspiracy is an independent
                   offence. In Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab6, this


6   (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1669
82                                                               [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


                          Court referred to its earlier decision in State (NCT of
                          Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu7, as also in Noor Mohammad
                          Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra8, to
                          underline that conspiracy is an independent offence
                          and may be punishable even if the substantive offence
                          committed by the conspirators does not ultimately
                          materialise.
              5.8.2. It was held in Noor Mohammad (supra) that Section
                     120B, IPC makes criminal conspiracy a substantive
                     offence which postulates an agreement between two
                     or more persons to do or cause to be done an act by
                     illegal means. Thus, criminal conspiracy, which is an
                     independent offence, is so incorporated in Section 29
                     of the NDPS Act.
6.     When the offence under Section 25 is entirely possible to be committed
       separately as an independent offence to remain distinct in itself, and
       when the offences of abetment and criminal conspiracy mentioned
       in Section 29 are in themselves independent offences, it is entirely
       logical to deduce and conclude that commission of these offences
       once established, would attract separate punishment and sentence.
       6.1. It would not be right to say that when Section 25 and Section
            29 mention the punishment for allowing premises to be used
            for the offence or for abetment and criminal conspiracy in
            the commission of an offence under the Chapter, and that
            punishment is not expressly mentioned, but what is mentioned is
            “punishment for that offence,” it would mean that the imposition
            of separate punishment is not contemplated. Both the Sections
            25 and 29 mention that the commissioner of offence in question
            shall be punishable with the punishment provided for “that
            offence” or “the offence”.
7.     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 legislature has referred to the punishment mentioned in the



7     (2005) 11 SCC 600
8     (1970) 1 SCC 696
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                          83

                Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


     particular section to be referred to and applied for the purpose of
     punishment and sentence to be imposed under another section.
     Stating differently, 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.
     7.1. The doctrine of reference is a well-recognised tool of legislation.
          It is a process whereby the legislature refers to the provision
          of one statute in the provisions of the other statute to be read
          into the other statute. In that way, the provision in one statute
          becomes part of the provisions of the other statute in which it
          is referred to. Analogous is the doctrine of incorporation, which
          bears a fine distinction with the doctrine of reference where
          provision from one statute is bodily lifted to be incorporated to
          be part of provision in another enactment.
     7.2. While the Court is not concerned in this case with the distinction,
          it would suffice to say that 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. Given
          this legislative mandate, the contention has to be negatived
          that no separate punishment and sentence is contemplated in
          respect of Section 25 and Section 29 of the Act.
8.   However, a riding clarification may be necessary. Even though
     punishment for the offences under Section 25 and Section 29 of the
     Act is separately contemplated and could be imposed independently
     and additionally, in a given case and in most of the cases these
     offences have a connect and an interaction with any of the main
     offences mentioned in Sections 15 to 19, 20 to 24 and others. It may
     happen in large number of cases that offences under Section 25 and
     29, as the case may be, take place along with the other substantive
     offences mentioned in Chapter IV, in course of the same transaction.
     The two offences may be part of an inclusive transaction. In other
     words, though separately punishable, the offences under Sections
     25 and 29 could be parasitic and derivative.
84                                                           [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       8.1. 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. In the instant case, the
            sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
       8.2. 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.
9.     This takes the Court to the second remaining question as to whether
       the fine imposed separately as part of the punishment of two offences
       would be liable to be treated concurrent along with the sentences
       of imprisonment.
       9.1. Section 53 IPC deals with the punishments. It says that
            punishments for which the offenders are liable under the
            provisions of this Code are death, imprisonment whether rigorous
            or simple, forfeiture of property and fine. Both imprisonment
            and fine are treated as punishments.
       9.2. In the present case, the appellant is sentenced by the High
            Court to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment, and to pay
            fine of ₹1,20,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous
            imprisonment for one year. This is a default imprisonment. In
            Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat9,
            this Court observed that the term of imprisonment in default of
            payment of fine is not a sentence it is a penalty which a person
            incurs on account of non-payment of fine. On the other hand,
            it was further observed, if sentence is imposed, an offender
            must undergo unless it is modified or varied in part or whole
            in the judicial proceedings.


9     (2013) 1 SCC 570
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                             85

                  Hem Raj v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


     9.3. What it implies is that 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.
10. It is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone total 11 years
    of imprisonment till January 2026, which includes the default
    imprisonment. Since the appellant has suffered the default
    imprisonment also and that he is not required to pay double amount
    of fine, he is entitled to be released from the jail.
     10.1. As a result, the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
           unless he is required to be detained in respect of any other
           offence.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms and the direction.
     Interlocutory applications, as may have been pending, shall not
     survive.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan