signature in exhibit 9, the statement of Lamar Abba Gana and to hold that they are signed by the same person. The submissions of the learned prosecuting Counsel at page 12 paragraphs 2 and 3 of her final written address is not far from the truth. The position of the law as regards judicial notice or judicial cognizance or judicial knowledge denotes a Court’s acceptance of a well known and indisputable fact, without requiring a proof there from. In the case of RT HON. ROTIMI CHIBUIKE AMAECHI V INEC, (2008) LPELR 446, wherein the Supreme Court held: “These requirements of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, Cap 112 LFN, 1990 are in line with the definition of the term judicial notice in the case of COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING REPRESENTATIVE V P. O. BRANCH SERVICES (1923) AC 191 at 212 where the Court said: “Judicial notice refers to facts, which a judge can be called upon to receive and to act upon, either from his general knowledge of them, or from inquiries to be made by himself for his own information from sources to which it is proper for him to refer.” See also KEYSTONE BANK LTD V A. O. S. PRACTICE, (2013) LPELR 20367 (CA) as well as Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition 2009 page 923. Arising from the above, in the instance case, firstly, by the testimony of PW4 and the result of the forensic examination of documents attached and marked X and XI and A – A5 as well as B – B5, it has been established that the author of documents marked X and XI was the Defendant. The evidence of PW4, the forensic examiner was never discredited under cross examination by the Defendant. Thus, Section 68(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) provides: 29