signature on a document is denied or that person who signed it is not known does not ipso facto render it inadmissible” In addition, this court can compare the signatures of the accused in the various documents including the receipts under Section 101 of the Evidence Act 2011 and draw conclusion. See GBOKO v STATE (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt 1063) 272 CA where the court held as follows: “As was pointed out by the lower court, the above provisions of Section 108(1) of the Evidence Act (now section 101(1) of the Evidence Act 2011) gave the court the power to make the comparison. There is no provision that before the court can invoke that power parties must first address it”. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish or prove the charge against the accused person; this court is satisfied that the prosecution had discharged the burden placed on it by law. The prosecutor had established the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is hereby found guilty on the five count charge which is Count No. 2 – 5. See NJOKU v STATE (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt 1339) P. 548 where the court held as follows: “it is the duty of the prosecution to establish or prove the charge/case against an accused person. In other words, it is the prosecution that bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person. For the court to come to conclusion 14