The Supreme Court has held that where a person commits multiple offences under the NDPS Act in the course of the same incident, such as possession of contraband, allowing use of a vehicle for the offence, and involvement in conspiracy, each offence is legally distinct and can attract separate punishment, even if they arise from a single transaction. The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria observed that:

“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.”

Explaining the statutory scheme, the Court clarified that while the principal offence (such as dealing with contraband under Section 20) carries a specifically prescribed punishment, offences under Sections 25 and 29 do not create separate punishment provisions but instead provide that the offender shall be punished with the same punishment as that prescribed for the principal offence. However, the Court held that this does not make them part of a single offence; rather, they remain independent offences (such as permitting use of a vehicle/premises or engaging in abetment or conspiracy), and therefore can still attract separate sentences, even though the punishment is derived by reference to the main offence.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that where such offences arise from the same set of facts, sentencing must be structured to avoid excessive punishment. It held that courts should ordinarily direct sentences to run concurrently, observing that one of the objects of concurrent running of the sentence is to avoid double punishment.

On the specific issue of fines, the Court clarified that the fine is a part of the sentence itself. Therefore, when sentences are ordered to run concurrently, imposing separate fines for each offence would effectively amount to double punishment. The Court held that in such cases, the convict “cannot be made to pay a fine twice.”

Applying these principles to the case, the Court noted that the appellant had already undergone over 11 years of imprisonment, including default imprisonment for non-payment of fine. In view of its finding that double fine could not be imposed where sentences run concurrently, the Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

Appearances

Petitioner- Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroop Anad Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravideep Badyal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Shukla, Adv.

Respondent- Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tavleen Singh, Adv. Ms. Vallabhi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Jogindar Mann, Adv. Ms. Kiran Verma, Adv. Ms. Bhagyashree Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, Adv.