Judgment :- E.J. BELLIE, J. ( 1 ) THESE 28 Criminal Revision cases arise out of one common Judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Criminal Appeals Nos. 74 and 90 to 102 of 1987 all filed by K. V. Narasimhan the accused against his convictions and sentences passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Egmore, Madras in 14 cases in E. O. C. C. Nos. 714 to 727 of 1986. Criminal Revision cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 have been filed by the accused K. V. Narasimhan and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 have been filed by the Department. ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate in each of the said 14 cases has convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 193 I. P. C. (28 counts), 196 I. P. C. (28 counts), 420 I. P. C. (28 counts), 468 I. P. C. (28 counts) and 471 read with 478 I. P. C. (42 counts) and under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act (56 counts), and under all Sections and on all counts sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200. 00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. ( 3 ) IN the appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions under all the Sections and on all counts, but modified the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months awarded by the Magistrate into imprisonment till rising of the Court. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge Crl. R. C. Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 (14) have been filed by the accused, and Crl. R. C. Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 (14 Nos.) by the Department. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge Crl. R. C. Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 (14) have been filed by the accused, and Crl. R. C. Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 (14 Nos.) by the Department. ( 4 ) THE facts are :- the accused filed seven false income-tax returns for the year 198384 and another seven false income-tax return for the year 1984-85 as if he was representing seven different persons of the names N. Mani, A. Kannan, S. Kuppusamy, Govindaraj, R. Ganapathi, K. M. Madasamy and Meghanatha Naicker, all non-existing Government Contractors, mentioning that tax had been deducted from them at source by the Government Department, along with forged tax deduction certificates, and obtained acknowledgments there for and got refund orders of tax deducted at source, and then he opened seven different accounts in the name of seven fictitious persons in the Bank of Tanjavur, and he deposited the refund orders and got the refund amount. ( 5 ) THIS fraud committed by the accused came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Department and thereupon they made search of the house of the accused and found some incriminating documents and the accused gave three confession statements Exs. P. 123 dated 23-7-1989, P. 148 dated 15-10-1985 and P. 168 dated 18-4-1986. Upon further investigation of the matter the Department came to know that the accused had defrauded the Department to an extent of Rupees 44793/-and on completion of the investigation the Department filed the private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Egmore, Madras-8. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate after preliminary enquiry framed charges under the Sections stated above. The accused denied the charges. ( 7 ) THE learned Magistrate on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the Department has proved the offences charged with and therefore he convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. In the appeals filed by the accused the appellate court confirmed the conviction but however regarding the sentence it reduced the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months under each count into imprisonment till rising of the Court. Against this the accused has filed 14 Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 aggrieved by the confirmation of conviction and sentence passed, and 14 Criminal Revision Cases Nos. Against this the accused has filed 14 Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 aggrieved by the confirmation of conviction and sentence passed, and 14 Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 were filed by the Department aggrieved by the reduction of the substantive sentence passed by the trial court. ( 8 ) NOW to take up Crl. R. C. Nos 182 to 195 of 1989 filed by the accused it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that there is no evidence that proves the guilt of the accused of the charges framed against him and the conviction by both the Courts below is erroneous. But on perusal of the Judgments of the Courts below and also the evidence I find there is absolutely no substance in this contention. ( 9 ) THE prosecution has examined P. W. 1 Mrs. Kantha Sivasamy an Income-tax Officer, who has clearly spoken that the accused filed the income-tax returns with her along with tax Deduction at Source (T. D. S.) Certificates. She has further testified that the accused also filed authorisation letters showing that he has been authorised by the said seven persons to represent them in filing the returns, and the accused got acknowledgments for filing the said returns. P. W. 4 Bashyam another Income-tax Officer has spoken that the returns being below one lakh rupees the return were summarily assessed and refund orders were passed. It is the evidence of P. W. 21 Zonal Accounts Officer of the Revenue Board that on the basis of the refund orders issued by P. W. 4, pay orders were issued to the accused by him. P. W. 5 Manager, Bank of Thanjavur, Mylapore Branch has testified that the accused opened seven accounts one in the name of N. Mani who is a dead person and the other six in fictitious names, and submitting the pay orders, he received the money. These witnesses have filed the relevant records relating to the transactions. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of these responsible Officers of the Income-tax Department and the Bank. ( 10 ) FURTHER it is in evidence that the accused has given three confession Statements Exs. P. 123, P. 148 and P. 168 which have not been retracted earlier and only during his questioning under Section 313 Cr. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of these responsible Officers of the Income-tax Department and the Bank. ( 10 ) FURTHER it is in evidence that the accused has given three confession Statements Exs. P. 123, P. 148 and P. 168 which have not been retracted earlier and only during his questioning under Section 313 Cr. P. C. during the trial of the case he has just stated that those confessions statements were obtained from him under coercion. A retraction only during questioning under Section 313 Cr. P. C. cannot be relied upon. If it is true that the confession statements had been obtained under coercion the accused would not have simply kept quite without immediately or at least within a reasonable time retracting it and he would not have waited until the time he was questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. His retraction during 313 Crl. P. C. is not a retraction at all because any accused would deny the offence against him to escape conviction and punishment. Thus the three confession statements alleged to have been made by the accused must be taken as true and genuine. ( 11 ) A reading of these confession statements would show that the accused has given a wealth of details and it appears only on the basis of these the Department was able to investigate the matter and unearth the fraud committed by the accused. Thus the prosecution has clearly proved that the accused had defrauded the Department by making false representation as if he was representing seven persons of different names in filing the returns while there were no such persons, and fraudulently obtained the refund orders and pay orders and got money from the Bank by defrauding the bank also. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the accused would contend that Section 277 of the Income-tax Act under which the Department has filed the criminal complaint applies only in respect of any fraud committed by an assessee of the Income-tax and not any non-assessee who makes a false statement, and that being the case the private complaint filed by the Department is not maintainable and therefore the whole proceedings is vitiated. But I am unable to agree with this contention. But I am unable to agree with this contention. A reading of the Section it would show that the Section is in respect of any person and not only an assessee for it begins with the words "if a person makes", and if really the legislature wanted that this Section should be only in respect of an assessee then it would have definitely stated "if any assessee makes. . . " in a recent Judgment of a single Judge of this Court is "n. K. Mohnot v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Admn.) and Another", 195 ITR 72 a similar contention raised has been repelled holding that Section 277 is not a provision in respect of only the assessees. The learned counsel for the accused would bring to my notice a Judgment of the Supreme Court in "kapurchand Shrimal v. TRO", 72 ITR 623 : ( AIR 1969 SC 682 ) as supporting his contention but on going through the Judgment I am at a loss to know how it helps him. In fact in a latter Judgment of the Supreme Court in "m. R. Prateap v. V. M. Muthukrishnan, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras" 196 ITR 1 : (1993 AIR SCW 4095) the said Judgment in 72 ITR 623 (Supra) has been referred to and held to the effect that the word person used in Section 277 does not refer to the assessee only. Thus I find no merit in the Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 filed by the Accused. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the accused then argued that a reading of the evidence would show that it would appear that even according to the prosecution apart from the accused there were other accused also who are the Income-tax Officials and they have not been made accused and for that reason the prosecution against the accused alone cannot stand. I find no merit in this contention. Both the Courts below have held that no other person is involved in the crime. Even for arguments sake admitting that there were some Income-tax officials also involved in the crime, only because they also have not been made accused this accused cannot escape. This argument is not at all open to him. Thus I find no merit in these 14 Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989, filed by the accused. Even for arguments sake admitting that there were some Income-tax officials also involved in the crime, only because they also have not been made accused this accused cannot escape. This argument is not at all open to him. Thus I find no merit in these 14 Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989, filed by the accused. ( 14 ) TAKING up Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 which have been, as aforesaid, filed by the Department against the reduction of substantive sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge from six months rigorous imprisonment to till rising of the Court, the learned counsel appearing for the Department pointed out that as per Section 277 Part I of the Income-tax Act, a minimum sentence of six months has been prescribed, and under Part II a minimum sentence of three months has been prescribed, and therefore the learned Sessions Judge is completely in error in reducing the sentence to till the rising of the Court. The learned counsel would then submit that it is in evidence that the accused had already been once before convicted under Section 278 land as per Section 278-A for a subsequent offence the punishment shall not be less than six months. The learned counsel is absolutely correct and I accept his contention that the reduction of sentence by the learned Sessions Judge is against law and cannot be sustained. ( 15 ) HOWEVER, it is seen from the records that since the accused was not able to pay the fine amount, to serve the default sentence of imprisonment he has been in jail for about seven months, and now the entire fine amount of Rs. 42,000. 00 also has been paid. Now, since the date of order of the learned Sessions Judge viz. , 28-3-1989 more than 4 1/2 years has passed. Considering these I do not think it would be proper to send the accused to jail again. So holding, all the revision petitions are dismissed. Petition dismissed.