Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 against the Defendant are punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code Cap 532 LFN 1990. And for the prosecution to succeed in Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 against the Defendant, the ingredients of the offence are as clearly stated by the learned prosecuting Counsel in the case of OSUNDU V FRN (Supra) as follows: (1) There is a document or writing; (2) The document or writing is forged; (3) The forgery is by the Accused (Defendant); (4) The Accused (Defendant) know that the document or writing is forged; (5) That he intended that the forged document to be acted upon to as genuine. And on the meaning of the offence of forgery, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of JOE ODEY AGI SAN V PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS, (2016) LPELR 42578, simply put it as follows: “The act of making a false document or altering a genuine one for same to be used.” The Count of Appeal, in the case of MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED V LAWRENCE DICKSON HOPE, (2016) LPELR 41191 held: “The term forgery denotes the act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine. In other words, forgery means a false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with intent to deceive.” The Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 2004 at page 677 also defined forgery as “an act of fraudulently altering, authenticating, issuing, or transferring a writing without appropriate authorization.” 25