Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2026 INSC 332 - Ss.25,29 NDPS Act

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 25,29- 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 - 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. 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. (Para 6-8.1)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 25,29 ; Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 116 - 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. (Para 5.7.2)

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120B - Conspiracy is an independent offence and may be punishable even if the substantive offence committed by the conspirators does not ultimately materialise. (Para 5.8.1)

Interpretation of Statutes - Doctrine of Reference - 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. (Para 7.1)

Sentencing - Concurrent Sentence - 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. (Para 8.2)

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 53- Both imprisonment and fine are treated as punishments -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. (Para 9-9.3)