exists that either the accused forged the document with his own hand or procured someone to commit the forgery. See GEORGE ABEL SCOTT VS. THE KING 13 WACA 25; PEARCE HENSHAW VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1963) 7 ENLR 120 at 122. As it is obvious that it was the appellant who uttered the forged documents Exhibits A7, A9 and A11 and derived benefit therefrom it goes without saying that he forged those documents or procured someone to do so. The failure by the prosecution to call a handwriting expert to show that by comparing the appellant’s admitted writing and signature in his written statement to the Police Exhibit A1 and the disputed signatures on Exhibits A7, A9 and A11 to show that appellant is the author of the Latter is not fatal to the prosecution’s case because even if there was such evidence which is negative, from the special circumstances of this case it will still be open to the court to draw the inference that the appellant procured someone else to forge and utter Exhibits A7, A9 and A11. It is therefore my view that the convictions of the appellant in Counts 4 and 5 are in order.” From all of the above, that is upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence from the prosecution and the statement of the defendant, I am of the view that the prosecution has established all the ingredients of the offence of forgery against the defendant and I so hold. The prosecution has proved that the defendant forged a Federal Government Certificate of Occupancy with No. 77/77/73 dated 7/8/2001 which was tendered and admitted as Appendix B annexture to Exhibit 1. The offence of forgery alleged against the defendant in Count 2 of the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore find you 26