also tendered documents, which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits 1, 2,
3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. After the close of the trial, the learned respective Counsels for
both the Complainant and the accused person submitted and adopted their final written
addresses as their respective arguments in this case. One single issue is raised for the
final determination of this Court and it is as follows:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused person beyond
reasonable doubts as required by law.

The onus of proof as it is trite law, in criminal cases, lies on the prosecution to
prove the offence charged beyond all clouds of doubt. This means that the prosecution
must prove the ingredients of the offence. This is an evidential burden on the prosecution
which does not shift. See GALADIMA VS STATE (2012) 18 NWLR (PART 1333)

Before proving every ingredient of the offence in this case, the prosecution
Counsel first drew my attention to the definition of “forgery” as provided in SECTION
363 OF THE PENAL CODE, as follows: -

“Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause
damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or
to cause any person to part with property or enter into any express or implied
contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits
forgery; and a false document made wholly or in part by forgery is called a forged

The prosecution Counsel refers me to the Supreme Court case of BABALOLA VS
THE STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PART 115) 264 where Nnaemeka Agu JSC (as he then
was)stated on forgery that, “they include not only document, which tells a lie, but also

Select target paragraph3