Separate Sentences Under Sections 20, 25 and 29 NDPS Act Permissible but Fine Cannot Be Imposed Twice if Sentences Run Concurrently: Supreme Court

Held: The Supreme Court held that offences under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act are distinct and independent offences, and separate sentences for each are legally permissible even if they arise from the same transaction. However, where sentences are directed to run concurrently, the fine component, being part of “sentence”, cannot be imposed cumulatively for each offence, and the convict cannot be compelled to pay double fine for the same set of facts.

Summary: The appellant was convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession and transportation of commercial quantity of charas (4.1 kg) recovered from a vehicle in which he was travelling. The Trial Court imposed 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine under each offence, which the High Court reduced to 10 years while maintaining separate sentences. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge conviction but argued that separate punishment under Sections 25 and 29 was impermissible as they merely extend the main offence, and further that imposition of separate fines amounted to double punishment. The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Chapter IV of the NDPS Act and held that Sections 25 (permitting use of conveyance) and 29 (abetment/conspiracy) create independent offences, even though they adopt the punishment prescribed for the principal offence by legislative reference. It clarified that such provisions are not subsumed within Section 20 but operate distinctly, thereby justifying separate sentences. At the same time, the Court emphasised that where offences arise from a single transaction, the principle of concurrent sentencing must be applied to avoid double jeopardy. Interpreting Section 53 IPC, the Court held that fine is part of sentence, and therefore, once sentences run concurrently, fine cannot be imposed twice.

Decision: The appeal was partly allowed to the extent that while upholding separate convictions and sentences under Sections 20, 25 and 29 NDPS Act, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was not liable to pay double fine and directed his release, noting that he had already undergone more than 11 years of imprisonment including default sentence. All pending applications were disposed of.