called Ejeh Ochechi (PW5) who was used to tender Document Examination and Comparison Result. Under cross-examination, the PW5 admitted that he did not posses any qualification in forensic science and he cannot explain the analysis in forensic regard (Exhibit R). Accordingly I hold that the PW5 is not competent to testify as handwriting analyst. It is also not in doubt that Mohammed N. Abubakar was not called as a witness in this matter. In the light of the above I am of the considered view that the counts on charges of forgery must fail, the prosecution having failed to adduce credible evidence to ground a conviction against the accused person. Accordingly, the accused person is discharged and acquitted on Counts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 bordering on forgery. With respect to Counts 24, 25, 26 and 27 on intent to defraud by false pretence, for the prosecution to ground a conviction, it must establish the following ingredients: 1. That there was a false pretence made by the accused persons. 2. That the accused person obtained property as a result of the false pretence from the said person. 3. That the accused did same with intent to defraud. From the content of the charges, the question that comes to mind is accused person ever represented himself to be one Alhaji Mohammed N. Abubakar? 27