“Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.” Section 16 of the Penal Code provides thus: “A person is said to do a thing “dishonestly” who does that thing with the intention of causing a wrongful gain to himself or another or of causing loss to any other person.” The above provisions are clear. Now in our consideration of the evidence on Count 2, I held that the document of title or the offer of conveyance, Exhibits P2 and P17 which defendant offered to PW2 as genuine documents of title were forged and or are not genuine. The documents were not issued by the issuing authority and indeed by Exhibit P8, they stated that the documents are “cloned” and not the original. The documents were also not given to him by the lawful allottee of plot 1528, the PW3. On the evidence, there was clearly no basis for the defendant to have sold plot 1528 to PW2 or indeed to anybody on the basis of the forged Exhibit P2 and or P17. You cannot sell or give out what you don’t own. In the circumstance, the defendant gave the said offer letter, P2 and P17 dishonestly with the intention of causing wrongful gain to himself (here he got over N2 Million naira) and loss to another (PW2) particularly here when he knew that the documents are not genuine but he held them out as genuine to PW2 who parted with a huge amount in return for nothing in real terms. It is trite law that a person who uses or possesses or deals with a forged document is guilty of forgery even if he is not the maker. And that the absence of evidence of a hand writing or any expert in the case of forgery is not prejudicial to prosecution’s case where the document and the accused are strongly linked. And where there is a very strong connecting link between the accused and the document to the extent that the circumstances establish the commission of the alleged offence by the accused, the court is entitled to draw the inference circumstantially that the accused was the author of the document and therefore the author of the crime, like in the instant case. See the case of Akinbisade V The state (2006) 17 N.W.L.R (pt.1007) 187 or (Criminal Appeal Cases) Vol. 3 at 31. On the whole, Count 3 was established by the prosecution and I accordingly find the defendant guilty as charged. 17