JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the-N.D.P.S. Act in two separate trials, and although he has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment in each of the trial, in case his sentences are not directed to run concurrently, he will have to serve more than 20 years' of rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, he has prayed before this Court that his sentences may be directed to run concurrently, rather than consecutively. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Vimal Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 789 and on the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 183 . 2. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to Section 427 Cr.P.C. in case a person has been convicted and sentenced in one trial and in case he were to be convicted and sentenced in another trial, subsequently, the sentences shall run consecutively and not concurrently. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the Bar. 4. The purpose of imprisonment is not only to incarcerate the accused person within four walls of the jail; the purpose is to reform the convict. Further, a sentence of imprisonment has to commensurate with the offence. In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act in two different cases. However, in case the sentences were not directed to run concurrently, the petitioner would have to serve a total of 20 years. If life imprisonments is taken as a term of 14 years, apparently the petitioner would be sentenced 'to a term longer than life imprisonment. The offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not so grave that they would warrant a sentence of more than life imprisonment. Therefore, although Section 427 Cr.P.C. directs that the sentences should run consecutively, but Section 427 also discretionary power on the Court to direct that the sentences should run concurrently, rather than consecutively. 5. The aim of imprisoning a person is not merely to dump him in a jail. Therefore, although Section 427 Cr.P.C. directs that the sentences should run consecutively, but Section 427 also discretionary power on the Court to direct that the sentences should run concurrently, rather than consecutively. 5. The aim of imprisoning a person is not merely to dump him in a jail. The aim is equally to reform him during the period of incarnation so that he may be brought back into the Society as a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen. Ten years is long enough time to reform a person. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner beyond 10 years would not serve any fruitful purpose. Moreover, the Courts cannot be ignorant of the fact that the jails are overcrowded. Therefore, taking a holistic view, this Court directs that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in Case No. 10/2006 (131/2005) by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Sirohi, and in Case No. 53/2007 (68/2007) by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Jodhpur, shall run concurrently, rather than consecutively.Hence, this petition is, hereby, allowed.Petition allowed. *******