The question of whether fines run concurrently when sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently has long remained a nuanced issue in criminal jurisprudence. While courts frequently order imprisonment terms for multiple offences to run concurrently, ambiguity persists regarding whether the same principle applies to fines imposed alongside such sentences.
The Supreme Court of India, in Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2026 INSC 332), has provided significant clarity on this issue. The judgment not only addresses the nature of fines as a component of punishment but also settles the debate on whether fines should be treated cumulatively or concurrently when sentences run concurrently.
Facts of the Case
The case of Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh arose from a narcotics-related prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
On 22 December 2014, a police team was conducting nakabandi (checkpoint duty) at the Tunnuhatti Police Barrier in Himachal Pradesh during early morning hours. At approximately 3:50 AM, a car was intercepted for routine checking.
Co-accused Kulwant Singh was driving the vehicle, while the appellant, Hem Raj, was seated in the front passenger seat. Upon opening the window, the police detected the smell of cannabis, which led to a detailed search of the vehicle.
During the search, a blue carry bag containing multiple transparent packets was found beneath the front passenger seat occupied by the appellant. The packets contained a black substance which, upon testing, was confirmed to be charas (cannabis) weighing approximately 4 kg 100 grams, i.e., a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
Following seizure and compliance with procedural formalities, both the appellant and co-accused were arrested and charged under:
- Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act (possession of commercial quantity of cannabis)
- Section 25 NDPS Act (allowing use of conveyance for offence)
- Section 29 NDPS Act (criminal conspiracy)
The Trial Court (Special Judge, Chamba) convicted both accused and imposed:
- 12 years rigorous imprisonment for each offence.
- Fine of ₹1,20,000 for each offence.
- 1-year default imprisonment for non-payment of each fine.
Importantly, the court directed that sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court reduced the imprisonment from 12 years to 10 years, but upheld the conviction and fines.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge the conviction, but raised a limited yet significant issue regarding sentencing:
- Whether separate fines could be imposed for each offence
- Whether fines should also run concurrently when imprisonment is concurrent
The appellant argued that requiring payment of multiple fines despite concurrent sentences constituted double punishment and was legally unsustainable.
This factual matrix ultimately led the Supreme Court to examine the interplay between concurrent sentences and fines, resulting in a landmark clarification on the issue.
Concept of Concurrent Sentences
Concurrent sentencing is a well-established principle in criminal law. When a person is convicted of multiple offences, the court may direct that the sentences of imprisonment run concurrently (simultaneously) rather than consecutively (one after another).
The primary rationale behind concurrent sentencing is to prevent disproportionate punishment where multiple offences arise from the same transaction. Courts exercise discretion in this regard, guided by:
- Nature of offences
- Single transaction rule
- Proportionality of punishment
- Avoidance of double jeopardy
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that even when multiple offences are distinct, courts often order concurrent sentences to ensure fairness and avoid excessive punishment.
Nature of Fine as Punishment
A central issue in the case was whether fines are independent of imprisonment or form part of the same sentence.
Under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Section 4 of BNS), punishments include:
- Death
- Imprisonment
- Forfeiture of property
- Fine
The Court emphasised that a fine is not merely an ancillary consequence but a substantive punishment forming part of the sentence itself. Thus, fines must be interpreted within the broader framework of sentencing.
Judgment and Reasoning
1. Nature of Offences under Sections 25 and 29
The Supreme Court held that Sections 25 and 29 are independent offences, not merely ancillary provisions.
- Section 25 criminalises knowingly allowing premises or conveyance to be used for the commission of an NDPS offence.
- Section 29 deals with abetment and criminal conspiracy, which are recognised as independent offences in criminal law.
The Court emphasised that criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence, capable of punishment even if the principal offence is not completed.
Thus, conviction under Section 20 does not exclude liability under Sections 25 and 29.
2. Doctrine of Legislation by Reference
A key aspect of the judgment is the Court’s interpretation of Sections 25 and 29. Unlike Section 20, these provisions do not specify punishment in numerical terms. Instead, they state that the offender shall be punished with the punishment provided for “that offence.”
The Court clarified that this is a case of legislation by reference, where:
- The punishment prescribed under Section 20 is incorporated into Sections 25 and 29.
- This does not negate the existence of separate offences.
- Rather, it ensures uniformity in punishment across related offences.
Therefore, separate punishments are legally valid.
3. Applicability of Section 25 to the Appellant
The Court rejected the argument that Section 25 applies only to owners.
It was observed that the provision also includes:
- Occupiers
- Persons having control or use of the conveyance
Since the appellant was occupying the vehicle and the contraband was found beneath his seat, he could be held liable under Section 25.
4. Concurrent Sentences and Avoidance of Double Punishment
The Court acknowledged that while offences under Sections 20, 25, and 29 are distinct, they may arise from a single transaction.
In such cases:
- Separate punishments may be imposed
- But sentences should ordinarily run concurrently to avoid excessive punishment
This reflects the principle that criminal law should not impose disproportionate penalties for overlapping conduct.
5. Whether Fine Runs Concurrently
This was the most crucial aspect of the judgment.
The Court examined:
- Section 53 IPC (Section 4 BNS), which recognises fine as a form of punishment.
- Judicial precedents distinguishing between sentence and penalty.
The Court held:
- Fine is part of the sentence and must be treated accordingly.
- When sentences run concurrently, the fine cannot be imposed cumulatively.
- The convict cannot be compelled to pay the fine twice for the same transaction.
However, the Court clarified that default imprisonment for non-payment of fine is not a sentence but a penalty.
6. Final Relief
The Court noted that the appellant had already undergone:
- Around 11 years of imprisonment, including default imprisonment
Since:
- The fine could not be imposed twice.
- The appellant had already served a substantial time.
- The Court directed that he be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh marks a significant development in criminal sentencing jurisprudence. It clarifies that fines, being an integral part of punishment, must follow the same logic as imprisonment when sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
By holding that fines cannot be imposed cumulatively in such cases, the Court has reinforced the principles of fairness, proportionality, and protection against excessive punishment.
In essence, the ruling ensures that concurrent sentencing is meaningful and not rendered ineffective by cumulative financial penalties. It strikes a careful balance between deterrence and justice, ensuring that punishment remains humane, rational, and legally coherent.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams