Supreme Court Rules Fine Must Run Concurrently With Imprisonment in Multiple Offences

The Supreme Court in HEM RAJ VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH has clarified an important aspect of sentencing in criminal law, holding that when imprisonment for multiple offences runs concurrently, the fine imposed must also run concurrently.

The ruling came from a Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria. The Court examined whether separate fines can be imposed when sentences for different offences are directed to run at the same time.

The appellant had been convicted under Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The High Court had reduced his imprisonment to ten years but imposed a fine of ₹1.20 lakh for each offence, along with additional imprisonment for default.

The appellant argued that since imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently, the fine should also be treated similarly. He contended that imposing separate fines in such cases was “illogical and impermissible,” especially since fine is recognised as a form of punishment under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code.

The State opposed this view, arguing that fines are independent components of punishment and can be imposed separately for each offence. It further claimed that default imprisonment for one fine does not remove liability for another.

Rejecting the State’s argument, the Court observed, “Section 53, IPC 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.”

The Court held that when substantive sentences run concurrently, the fine component must also operate concurrently. Imposing multiple fines in such a situation would go against the logic of concurrent sentencing.

However, the Court clarified that offences under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act are distinct and independent. Therefore, separate punishments for such offences are legally permissible, even if they arise from the same transaction.

The judgment explained that allowing premises or vehicles for illegal activities and engaging in conspiracy are separate offences. Each offence can attract punishment, reflecting legislative intent to treat them independently under the law.

In this case, the appellant had already served 11 years of imprisonment, including a one-year default sentence for non-payment of fine. The Court held that he could not be compelled to pay a second fine or undergo further imprisonment.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the appellant’s immediate release. The decision reinforces that fines, being part of the sentence, must follow the same rule of concurrency as imprisonment.