JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13.2.2004 and 16.4.2004. By the former order his application for converting the sentences to run concurrently was rejected by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. By the latter order the revision filed by him was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2001 the petitioner was involved in six cases of theft. For each separate incident he was tried separately, but by the same trial court namely Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide different judgments pronounced on different date in these cases, the petitioner was sentenced to different periods. The criminal case, the offence and the sentence are shown as under: S.No. Cr. Case No. Offences Period of Sentence 1. 894/2000 u/s. 457 3 years) u/s. 380 3 years) 2. 129/2001 u/s.454 2 years) u/s. 380 2 years) 3. 131/2001 u/s. 457 2 years) u/s. 380 3 years) 4. 132/2001 u/s. 457 3 years) u/s. 380 3 years) 5. 354/2001 u/s. 454 2 years) u/s 380 3 years) 6. 830/2001 u/s. 454 2 years) u/s. 380 2 years) Total 16 years 3. Despite the fact that the same Court had tried the petitioner for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, the learned trial Court did not direct that these sentences mentioned above should run concurrently. Consequently, the sentences are directed to run consecutively. Therefore, the petitioner is required to undergo a sentence of 16 years. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by this fact of having to undergo a sentence for such a long time, he filed an application before the trial court requesting it to direct that the sentences should run concurrently rather than consecutively. However, vide order dated 13.2.2004 the learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the application. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a revision petition challenging the said order. But, vide order dated 16.4.2004 the learned Addl. Sessions judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition. Hence this petition before us. 4. Mr. Mohd. Aslam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as argued that the petitioner is a young boy who is driven by unemployment and poverty to commit these petty offences of theft one after the other. But, vide order dated 16.4.2004 the learned Addl. Sessions judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition. Hence this petition before us. 4. Mr. Mohd. Aslam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as argued that the petitioner is a young boy who is driven by unemployment and poverty to commit these petty offences of theft one after the other. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.11.2000 and is presently serving the sentences as ordered by the Court. The maximum sentence for theft is three years. However, because the sentences are not directed to run concurrently, the petitioner would have to serve a total sentence of sixteen years. Therefore, he should not be directed to serve the sentence far above the maximum sentence prescribed for theft. He has further contended that although the subordinate courts do not have the power to direct that the sentences to run concurrently, but the High Court under Section 482 Cr.RC. can exercise the inherent powers and in the interest of justice can direct that the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. In order to buttress his contention he has relied upon the cases of Mohan Lal @ Hanuman Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (Cr.L.R. (Raj. 1987, 241) , Jeevan & Ors. v. State (1970 WLN (Part 1) 449) , and Bachna Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1984 Raj. Cr. Cases 306) . 5. On the other hand the learned PP., Mr. Arun Sharma has argued that the incidents occurred at different times in different localities and are separate incidents. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly subjected to separate trials. According to him, the petitioner should be punished separately for each individual incident. Therefore, he has supported the impugned orders. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the impugned orders. 7. Section 427 of the Code deals with subsequent sentences which reads as under: "427. Sentences on offender already sentenced for another offence-(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentences. Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence." 8. Although sub-section (1) at the first blush appears to be of mandatory nature, but the fact that a discretionary power has been given to the Court to direct that subsequent sentences can run concurrently, sub-section (1) is merely directory and not mandatory. While passing sentence of punishment the trial court should be alive to the theories of punishment and to the purpose of punishment. The retributive theory of punishment no longer holds the field. It is the reformative theory of punishment which is in forefront. The purpose of punishment is no longer to lock up a person and to forget about his human existence. The purpose is no longer to take revenge on the person by reducing him to a mere animal existence. Since the 19th century the purpose of punishment is to reform the offender to the point that he should be brought back into the mainstream of society as a productive and a contributory member. Therefore, long periods of incarceration do not achieve any purpose except to add frustration and pessimism to the life of accused, in an era of Human Rights where the right of the accused is as important as the rights of the free citizen, punishment has to be humane and purposeful rather than being draconian and absolute. Although the occasions, by keeping him incarcerated for long period of sixteen years would not do justice to him. For, petty offence of theft he would be required to serve the sentence which ordinarily is reserved for sever offences. The courts are established for the purpose of doing justice to the people. By keeping him incarcerated, a grave injustice would be done to the petitioner. In the case of Mohan Lai @ Hanuman Singh (supra) this Court dealt with a case where a poor man had committed three incidents of theft and was sentenced to a total period of 17 years and 6 months. By keeping him incarcerated, a grave injustice would be done to the petitioner. In the case of Mohan Lai @ Hanuman Singh (supra) this Court dealt with a case where a poor man had committed three incidents of theft and was sentenced to a total period of 17 years and 6 months. While relying on a Division Bench judgment of a Calcutta High Court and while applying the decision of this Court in the case of Jeevan & Ors. and Bachna Ram & Ors. (supra) this Court was pleased to direct that the sentences should run concurrently and not consecutively. Taking a cue from the said judgment, in the interest of justice, we direct that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in the aforementioned cases should run concurrently and not consecutively. In case the petitioner has completed the sentence of punishment, he should be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. r With these observations this petition is hereby allowed.Petition allowed. *******