cheques came from Mohammed Liman the son of the nominal complainant. This piece of evidence was not denied nor controverted by the prosecution. As stated earlier, it is surprising that the said Mohammed Liman was never called in by the prosecution. The law is clear that while it is not necessary for the prosecution to call every available witness but it is vital and incumbent on the prosecution to call particular witness whose evidence is material for the resolution of vital issues as in the instant case. See OGUNZEE v STATE (1998) 5 NWLR Pt 551 at 521. It is also trite law that on a charge of forgery, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused person forged the document in question. In order to make out a prima facie case, the prosecution needs to call a hand-writing analyst to show that the handwriting of the person who is alleged to have forged the document is the same as the one on the forged document where the supposed alteration was made. Furthermore, the person whose handwriting is forged is a material witness; thus, the failure of the prosecution to call a handwriting analyst and the person or persons whose writings were mutilated and changed as witnesses is fatal to its case. See the Supreme Court case of ALAKE v STATE (1992) 9 NWLR 9Pt 265) 260 at 270. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to call an handwriting analyst and Mohammed N. Abubakar whose signature was purportedly forged. It should be of note that the prosecution 26