eviction were disnt issed and the suits for specific performance were :rlso dismissed for non-prosecution. He a-1so submits that the letters to the Department of Stamps and Registration were not addressed by the legal representatives of late M. Padmanabha Rao and the sum and substance of the tenor of the complaints does not reveal commission of any offence by the petitioners herein and, therefore, the proceedings against them are unjustifiable. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no nec,essity for an Agreement of Sale to be executed on a stamp paper and execution of Agreement of Sale over a vi'hite par pcr is sufficient and, indeecl, the said Agreements of Sale \vcre never put into service or used by the petitioners herein and, therefore, it cannot be held that they used those documents to mislead the Courts or to cause loss to the complainants. The learned counsel also contends that late M. Padmanabha Rao is an Advocate by profession and, therefore, he cannot be misled. He also submits that the stamp vendor is not arrayed as an Accused. Learned counsel also submits that the suit for eviction filed by the private respondents in both the cases
