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 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 other words, though separately punishable, the offences u/ss.25 and 29 could be parasitic and derivative – The conviction is possible for two offences which may be inclusive or interdependent arising out of same course of action or the transaction – 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. [Paras 5.3, 5.6, 5.8.2, 6, 7.2, 8, 8.1] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.53 – Appellant submitted that due to his poor condition, he is not in a position to pay the fine – 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: Held: In the present case, the appellant is sentenced by the High Court to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment, and to pay fine of ₹1,20,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year – This is a default imprisonment – What it implies is that 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 – s.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 – It is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone total 11 years of imprisonment till January 2026, which includes the default imprisonment – Since the appellant has suffered the default imprisonment also and that he is not required to pay double amount of fine, he is entitled to be released from the jail. [Paras 9.2, 9.3, 10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.