Supreme Court Rules Concurrent Sentences Mean Fines Must Also Run Concurrently

In a ruling that will reshape how courts approach sentencing in multi-count criminal cases, the Supreme Court has held that when substantive prison sentences for multiple offences are directed to run concurrently, the fines imposed for those offences must also run concurrently. The judgment in Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2026 INSC 332, delivered on April 8, 2026 by a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, addresses a gap in sentencing practice that has left many convicts serving extended periods of incarceration through default imprisonment for unpaid fines, even after their substantive sentences have been served.

Facts of the Case

On December 22, 2014, police intercepted a vehicle at a checkpoint in Himachal Pradesh and recovered over four kilograms of charas, a narcotic substance classified as a commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused, Hem Raj and a co-convict, were charged under multiple provisions of the NDPS Act, including Section 20(b)(ii)(C) for possession of commercial quantity, Section 25 for allowing a conveyance to be used for the commission of a drug offence, and Section 29 for criminal conspiracy.

The Special Judge at Chamba convicted the accused and sentenced each to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1.2 lakh per offence. A default term of one year was attached to each fine. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the fines were imposed separately for each count. On appeal, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reduced the substantive sentence to 10 years but upheld the separate imposition of fines for each offence.

The Legal Question Before the Supreme Court

The central question was whether a convict could be made to pay separate fines for each offence when the substantive sentences of imprisonment for those offences had been ordered to run concurrently. Hem Raj had already served over 11 years in prison, a period that included default jail time for unpaid fines. Despite the fact that the substantive sentence (as reduced by the High Court) was 10 years, the separate fines and their default terms effectively extended his incarceration beyond the concurrent sentence period.

The appellant argued that Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code defines the punishments to which offenders are liable, and fine is listed as a distinct form of sentence. Since fine is itself a sentence, the concurrent nature of the imprisonment must extend to the fine component as well. Requiring an accused to pay fines twice over for offences whose sentences run concurrently would, in effect, defeat the purpose of concurrency.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The bench partly allowed the appeal and ordered the immediate release of Hem Raj. On the question of separate offences, the Court upheld that Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act create independent and distinct offences. Section 25 deals with knowingly allowing any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal, or conveyance to be used for the commission of a drug offence. Section 29 covers abetment and criminal conspiracy. Because these are separate and independently punishable offences, separate sentences can lawfully be imposed even when they arise from the same transaction.

However, the Court drew a clear line on fines. Relying on Section 53 of the IPC, which classifies fine as a form of sentence, the bench held that the collection of fines must follow the same concurrent logic as imprisonment. When a court directs that substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, a convict cannot be made to pay fines twice over, even if fines were separately imposed for each count. The amount of fine, being a sentence, must be treated as concurrent along with the sentences of imprisonment.

The Hidden Consequence: Default Imprisonment for Unpaid Fines

One of the most important aspects of this judgment is its exposure of a practical injustice caused by the separate imposition of fines. When a court imposes a fine, it typically attaches a default term of imprisonment in case the fine is not paid. If separate fines are imposed for each offence, the default terms stack up, effectively adding months or years to the actual time served. In Hem Raj's case, this meant that even though his substantive concurrent sentence was 10 years, he remained in custody for over 11 years because of the cumulative default jail time for unpaid fines on multiple counts.

By holding that fines must run concurrently when substantive sentences do, the Supreme Court has effectively eliminated this backdoor extension of custody. The ruling means that the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine should also be treated as concurrent, preventing a situation where an accused has nominally received a concurrent sentence but is practically detained longer because of separately computed fine defaults.

Implications Beyond the NDPS Act

Although the case arose under the NDPS Act, the principle has broad application. The Court's reliance on Section 53 of the IPC, which is a general provision applicable across criminal statutes, means that the concurrent fine rule applies to any criminal proceeding involving multiple counts and a concurrent sentencing order. This includes cases under the IPC (now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), the Prevention of Corruption Act, economic offences, and any other statute where multiple charges arise from a single transaction and sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

Practical Takeaways

Trial courts, sessions courts, and appellate courts dealing with multi-count convictions now have clear guidance: when directing substantive sentences to run concurrently, fines must also be directed to run concurrently. Failing to do so risks inflating the practical custodial period through default imprisonment. Defence counsel should audit pending appeals where separately imposed fines have led to default imprisonment, as this judgment provides a direct basis for relief. Prosecution teams should factor concurrent fines into their sentencing submissions going forward. For convicts currently serving extended terms on account of separate fine defaults, the ruling opens the door to applications for immediate release where the substantive concurrent period has already been served.