JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has made a limited prayer before this Court, namely, that in DB Criminal Appeal No.325/2003, vide judgment dated 22nd September 2011, this Court had reduced his conviction from offence under Section 302 IPC to conviction under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34. He was also convicted for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and for offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. In another case, he has been convicted for offence 224 IPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways) Ajmer and has been sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment and imposed with the fine of Rs. 500/-, and further directed to undergo three months of simple imprisonment, in default thereof. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that if the sentences were not directed to run concurrently, he would be required to serve twelve years of imprisonment. Therefore, he has prayed that this Court may direct the sentences to run concurrently, rather than consecutively. 3. In order to buttress his contention that this Court has ample power to direct the sentences to run concurrently, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Vimal Mehra v. State of Rajasthan [2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 789] , and on the case of Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan, [2008 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1227]. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that since the nature of the offences are different, since the conviction has been recorded by two different courts at two different times, the sentences should not be directed to run concurrently, but should run consecutively. 5. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that punishment should commensurate with the offence. Moreover, the liberty of the citizen should not be compromised in a revengeful manner. Since the reformative theory of punishment rules the field, no fruitful purpose is served by keeping a person incarcerated for a long time. 6. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has already been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, no fruitful purpose would be served, if he is required to further serve a period of two years for offence under Section 224 IPC. 6. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has already been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, no fruitful purpose would be served, if he is required to further serve a period of two years for offence under Section 224 IPC. Therefore, this Court directs that the sentence awarded by this Court in DB Criminal Appeal No.325/2003 and the sentence awarded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rlys) Ajmer vide judgment dated 13.11.2007 shall run concurrently and not consecutively.This petition is, hereby, allowed.Petition allowed. *******