Judgment S. P. KUKDAY,J. ( 1 ) RULE, made returnable forthwith with consent of parties. Learned a. P. P. waives service for respondent/state. ( 2 ) THE petitioners impugn order of jmfc, Gangakhed dated 5-2-2002 passed in R. C. C. No. 428/1998 convicting the petitioners of offence punishable under section 452 read 34 of I. P. C. and sentencing them for three months of R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to suffer r. I. , for fifteen days, and for the offence punishable under section 324 read 34 of I. P. C. and sentencing them to suffer R. I. for one month and to pay of fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default R. I. for seven days. Learned Magistrate directed that the sentences are to run separately. The order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Appellate Court by order dated 28th July, 2005 in Criminal appeal No. 2/2004. The petitioners impugns these orders in the present petition. ( 3 ) FACTS relevant for deciding the petition are that : Complainant Prabhuappa (P. W. 1), Padminibai w/o Kundlik (P. W. 2), padminibai w/o Ashroba (P. W. 3), Ram (P. W. 4), Chandrakalabai (P. W. 5) are the neighbours of petitioner No. 4 Baban s/o kishan Salve. On 5-5-1998, Prabhuappa made allegations that his stones were stolen by petitioner No. 4 Baban and sought explanation from him. As the accusation was made, petitioner No. 4 Baban abused him. Therefore, the complainant lodged a report with police. On 15-5-1998 petitioners entered house of complainant prabhuappa, armed with sticks and started a quarrel because previously Baban was accused of stealing stones. They started beating Prabhuappa, Padmini w/o Kundlik (P. W. 2 ). Padminibai w/o Ashroba (P. W. 3), ram (P. W. 4) and Chandrakalabai (P. W. 5) came to the rescue of Prabhuappa. They were also assaulted. All of them suffered injuries. After the incident. Complainant prabhuappa lodged a complaint with gangakhed Police Station. On the basis of this complaint, offences punishable under sections 452, 324 read with 34 of I. P. C. were registered against the petitioner. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. It is registered as R. C. C. No. 428/1998. After conclusion of the trial, the petitioners came to be convicted as aforesaid and were sentenced to suffer R. I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. It is registered as R. C. C. No. 428/1998. After conclusion of the trial, the petitioners came to be convicted as aforesaid and were sentenced to suffer R. I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for the offence punishable under section 452 read with 34 of I. P. C. and R. I. for one month and fine of rs. 100/- each for the offence punishable under section 324 read with 34 of I. P. C. ( 4 ) IN the present case, learned Counsel for the petitioners is challenging the quantum of sentence alone. Therefore, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the case. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. Petitioner No. 4 was accused of stealing stones belonging to the complainant. In view of this allegation, petitioner No. 4 got enraged and this led to the present incident. Learned Counsel contends that in fact this was a fit case where benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders act should have been given to the petitioners. Instead of that, sentences of imprisonment are also directed to run separately. Learned A. P. P. on the other hand supports the quantum of punishment determined by the trial Court. ( 6 ) THE theories which are now followed for determining quantum of punishment are the deterrent theory of punishment and reformatory theory of punishment. Reformatory theory is generally preferred for determining the quantum of punishment. The punishment has to be commensurate with the guilt and should never be disproportionate. Extraneous considerations should not enter determination of the quantum of punishment. In this behalf reference can be made to the ruling of the Supreme court reported in 2002 (3) S. C. C. 76 in the matter of (Lehna v. State of Haryana ). In that case, in para 26 of the report, the Apex court made reference to the principles of "just desert" and explained the distinction between the principle of "just desert" and "proportionality". The Apex Court observed that : "the principle of proportion between crime and punishment is a principle of just desert that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable. The Apex Court observed that : "the principle of proportion between crime and punishment is a principle of just desert that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable. The requirement that punishment not be disproportionately great, which is a corollary of just desert, is dictated by the same principle that does not allow punishment of the innocent, for any punishment in excess of what is deserved for the criminal conduct is punishment without guilt. " After referring to the extraneous consideration that influence the decision of the quantum, the apex Court observed in para 28 of the report that : "proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. Uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences. " ( 7 ) THESE principles are required to be applied to the facts of the given case for determining the quantum of punishment. Existence of mitigating circumstances also influenced the determination of the quantum. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. It is also not in dispute that the quarrel took place on account of the allegation of theft levelled by the complainant against petitioner No. 4 Baban. These facts indicate application of the reformatory theory of punishment. The determination of punishment is bound to differ from person to person. In the present case the trial judge has inflicted sentence of three months for the offence punishable under section 452 of I. P. C. and sentence of one month of imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 324 of I. P. C. Generally the sentences are directed to be run concurrently. However, in the present case, they are directed to run separately. Be that, as it may it is not necessary to on elaborate this aspect. In the present case, in view of the mitigating circumstances pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it can be seen that a case is made out for reduction of the sentence. The petitioners have already undergone sentence for two months and 12 days i. e. nearly 2 months. Therefore, ends of justice would be met by directing that both the sentences imposed should run concurrently and should be reduced to the sentence already undergone. The petitioners have already undergone sentence for two months and 12 days i. e. nearly 2 months. Therefore, ends of justice would be met by directing that both the sentences imposed should run concurrently and should be reduced to the sentence already undergone. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below is confirmed subject to this modification. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above observations in respect of reduction of the sentence already undergone. Petition partly allowed.