When Sentences Of Imprisonment For Multiple Offences Run Concurrently, Fine Also Run Concurrent : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 8) observed that where sentences imposed for different offences are directed to run concurrently, a fine cannot be imposed separately for each offence.

The Court held that fine imposed separately as part of the punishment of two offences would be liable to be treated concurrent along with the sentences of imprisonment.

“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.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria while granting a relief to the Appellant from payment of a separate fine for punishment that were directed to run concurrently for two offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“Act”).

The Appellant was convicted for offences committed under Sections 25 and 29 of the Act. The High Court modified the Appellant's sentence to 10 years rigorous imprisonment from 12 years rigorous imprisonment with ₹1.20 lakh fine for each offence. Additionally, one year's imprisonment was directed in the event of default of payment of the fine.

The Appellant had served 11 years of imprisonment, covering both his substantive sentence and the period of default imprisonment for non-payment of the fine.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to impose separate fines for sentences directed to run concurrently, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that because the High Court directed the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently, the fine, which is also defined as "punishment" under Section 53 IPC, should operate concurrently as well. To force a convict to pay the fine twice in such a scenario was deemed "illogical and impermissible."

Opposing the Appellant's stance, the state argued that fine is a distinct part of the sentence and that separate fines for separate offences are statutorily mandated. The State contended that the one-year sentence undergone by the Appellant for non-payment of fine for one offence wouldn't relieve him from his liability to pay fine for another offence.

The issue before the Court was 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.

Rejecting the State's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria partly allowing the appeal, accepted the Appellant's argument that since imposition of fine constitutes a distinct form of punishment under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it cannot be imposed multiple times when the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

When substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently, the fine cannot be imposed twice, the court said.

Separate Punishment For Distinct NDPS Offences Is Permissible

Rejecting the appellant's primary contention, the Supreme Court held that offences under Sections 25 (allowing premises or conveyance to be used for commission of an offence) and 29 (abetment or criminal conspiracy) are distinct and independent offences under the NDPS Act.

The Court explained that permitting a vehicle or premises to be used for narcotics offences constitutes a separate wrongdoing, and criminal conspiracy is itself a substantive offence in law. Therefore, once such offences are established, they can legitimately attract separate punishments even if they arise from the same transaction.

The Bench observed that the statutory scheme reflects legislative intent to treat these offences independently, even though the punishment prescribed is linked to the punishment for the principal offence.

However, on the second issue, the Court clarified that a fine forms part of the sentence under criminal law. Therefore, if imprisonment for multiple offences is directed to run concurrently, the fine component must also operate concurrently.

In light of these findings, the Court partly allowed the appeal and ordered the Appellant's immediate release, noting he had already served 11 years of imprisonment, including a one-year term for defaulting on his fine. The Court clarified that since the Appellant had completed the default imprisonment for one offence, he was not required to pay the fine for the second offence or serve additional jail time for defaulting on it, as the fine imposed on him ran concurrently, not separately.

Cause Title: HEM RAJ VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroop Anad Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR