LexHEM RAJ versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 othe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.