Like count 2, Count 4 charges the defendant with the offence of fraudulently making a false document or forgery contrary to Section 363 of the Penal Code and punishable under 364 of the same Act. I had earlier explained the import of the provision of Sections 363 and 362(a) of the Penal Code and the necessary elements that must be proved to sustain the charge of forgery. I need not repeat myself again. On the evidence, the document subject of this count is the Revenue collectors receipt dated 21st August, 1996 purported to have been issued to Mr. Sunday Ameh Ako (PW3) by the FCT acknowledging payment of N21, 000 land form and processing fee. This document was admitted in evidence as Exhibit P4 and it was part of the documents defendant issued to the norminal complainant as genuine documents for the sale of Plot 1528. As we have repeated in this judgment, the sale was for consideration and the defendant received the sum of N2,050,000 (Two Million and Fifty Thousand Naira) in cash and kind for the sale. Now from the unchallenged evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Revenue Receipt purported to have been issued in favour of Mr. Sunday Ameh Ako on 21st August, 1996 did not emanate from the Federal Capital Development Authority. Indeed the genuine Revenue collectors receipt issued in favour of Mr. Sunday Ameh Ako for land processing fee is dated 11th May, 1993 and not 21st August, 1996 and admitted as Exhibit P15(b) or 34(a). The acknowledgment of the payment of these fees is also on 11th May, 1993 vide Exhibits P16 or 34b. These documents were issued years before the purported Exhibit P4 was made dishonestly and presented as a genuine receipt to induce PW2 to enter into the failed sale of land transaction. Here again, the defendant has not given evidence on how he came about Exhibit P4 made in 1996, three years after the original was issued and which he presented as genuine to PW2 with respect to the sale of plot 1528 but which the issuing authority has stated does not emanate from them. The lawful owner of the plot, PW3, has equally stated that he did not at any time sell or transact any business of sale of the plot with defendant. The said Exhibit P4 is on the unchallenged evidence of prosecution witnesses certainly not genuine and therefore forged. In the circumstances, it is not difficult to hold that the offence of forgery under Count 4 has been established beyond reasonable doubt against defendant. I so hold. 18