statement of Okike Godwin Uchechukwu and the statements of the Defendant, exhibits 6,6(a) and 6(b) respectively. Thus, learned prosecuting Counsel submitted that the false pretence on the part of the Defendant is that at the time he sold plot L84 Dape District to PW2 and gave her the right of occupancy over the Plot, the Defendant knew that he did not own the property in question. According to the learned prosecuting Counsel, because the defendant’s false pretence on PW2, PW2 parted with her N3,900,000.00 believing that the Defendant owns the property. Hence learned prosecuting Counsel submitted that by the Defendant’s action and conduct and the exhibits tendered, the Defendant had an intentional pervision of truth for the purpose of inducing PW2 to part with her N3,900,000.00. In respect of counts 2,3,4 and 5 in the charge which principally deal with forgery and using as genuine document, the learned prosecuting Counsel at page 10 paragraph 3 set out the elements or ingredient required to prove the offence. She then referred me to the evidence of PWs1, 5 and 7 and submitted that their evidence are consistent that the offer of terms of grant/conveyance of approval dated 27th November, 2001 over plot L84 Dape District attached to exhibit 2 was given to the Defendant for the purpose of recertification and the Defendant also by exhibit 6, admitted collecting the title document from PW7. She then contended that the General form of affidavit dated 12