they tried to convince him, but invain. Thereafter, A3 hatched a plan to grab the property of the complainant and tried to offer the land for sale under a sale agreement, dated 09.12.2003. L.Ws.2 to 4 approached A3 to purchase the house site. Basing on the document, dated 09.12.2003, wherein the signatures of the complainant was filled up by third party, L.Ws.2 to 4 purchased the said land from A3 and paid a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- towards advance. Later L.Ws.2 to 4 approached L.W.1 and on coming to know that the complainant did not sell his share to anybody and that the said agreement was a forged agreement, with great difficulty L.Ws.2 to 4 got back their advance amount from A3 on the intervention of elders. A3 knowingly executed an agreement of sale in favour of L.Ws.2 to 4. Not satisfying with his desire, A3 colluded with A4 to A7 and with the same common intention A7 prepared a common sale deed in favour of A4. A5 and A6 attested and forged the signatures of the complainant and presented before the Registrar office, Kadapa by impersonating the complainant by another person. The charge sheet also reveals that A1 signed as Principal of the complainant before the Sub-Registrar and presented a power of attorney said to have been executed by the complainant, which was registered at Muddanur, which was obtained by the complainant. Further the investigation discloses that document No.42/03 of SubRegistrar’s Office was a sale deed for Rs.1,50,000/- executed on 15.04.2003 and presented on 17.04.2003. The document was kept pending under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act as the accused had not adopted the square yard rate of Rs.275/- fixed for the survey number. But, even before the document was referred under Section 47-A, both the executant and the claimant of the said document presented an application to the registering officer on 23.04.2003 requesting for return of the pending document without registration
