JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although she has been convicted for the offence under Section 397 (sic 379) of I.P.C. in three separate trials, and although she has been sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment each in the two trials, two years' simple imprisonment in one trial, in case her sentences are not directed to run concurrently, she will have to serve eight years' of imprisonment. Therefore, she has prayed that her 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/she were to be convicted and sentenced in another trial, subsequently, the sentences would 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 Section 379 I.P.C. in three different cases. However, in case the sentences were not to run concurrently, the petitioner would have to serve a total of eight years. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has already remained in jail for six years. The offence under Section 379 I.P.C. is not so grave that it would warrant imprisonment of eight years. Therefore, although Section 427 Cr.P.C. directs that the sentences should run consecutively, but Section 427 also bestows a 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/her in a jail. The aim is equally to reform him/her during the period of incarnation so that he/she may be brought back into the society as a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen. 5. The aim of imprisoning a person is not merely to dump him/her in a jail. The aim is equally to reform him/her during the period of incarnation so that he/she may be brought back into the society as a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen. Six years is long enough time to reform a person. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner beyond six 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 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Case Nos. 53/2005 and 43/2005 vide orders dated 22.2.2006 and 27.4.2006 as well as in Criminal Case No. 36/2005 for offence under Section 379 I.P.C., shall run concurrently, rather than consecutively.Hence, this petition is, hereby, allowed.Petition allowed. *******