The learned prosecution relied and referred me to the evidence of PWS 3 and 4 and exhibits 7 and 22 to prove the ingredients of the offence. According to the learned prosecution, PWS3 and 4 testified that the 1st Defendant manipulated documents in exhibit 22, the policy of Fine Trust Academy in order to have an edge over Fine Trust Academy owed by PW4. He submitted that the 1st Defendant must be held responsible for changing the date of Fine Trust Academy application form for land from 1997 to 2005. The learned prosecution submitted that if the Honourable Court hold that the 1st Defendant has interest in Pax Education Resources Limited and that the entity is for relatives and associates of the 1st Defendant, then it is not difficult to hold the 1st Defendant responsible for forging of the said exhibit 7 in favour of Pax Education Resources Limited. He relied on the case of CHUKWUEMEKA N. AGWUNA V ATT. GEN. OF FEDERATION, (1995) 5 NWLR (pt396) page 418 at 438. The learned prosecution submitted also that it need not present two documents that is, one forged and the other genuine and handwriting analyst. He contended that where the forgery or alteration are clear and glaring on the face of the document as in this case, there is no need for handwriting analysts and no need for presenting two documents. He therefore urged me to hold that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of count three beyond reasonable doubt. On whether the prosecution from available evidence before the Court has established a case of wrongful conversion of plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III and whether the Honourable Court can order restoration of same to the victim of the crime? Firstly, learned prosecution submitted that on 26th September, 2017, this Honourable Court granted interim forfeiture order on Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III, the subject matter of the commission of crime in favour of Independent Corrupt Practice 18