2. That they did so with the intention to support a false pretence and make PW1 part with his property/money. Hence, in consideration of the offence of forgery the learned prosecution urged me to bear in mind the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the cases of AGWUNA V A.G FEDERATION (1995) 5 NWLR (pt 396) page 418 paragraph F – G and PEARCE HENSHAW C.O.P, (1963) 7 ENLR page 122. In the instant case the prosecution submitted that PW1 testified and tendered exhibits 1 and 2 which were given to him by the three Defendants in this case and that all the three Defendants acknowledged Exhibits 1 and 2 as documents they gave to PW1. The prosecution also referred me to the testimony of PW2 and exhibit 5. In respect of Counts 4 and 6 bothering on using as genuine exhibits 1 and 2 against the Defendants, the prosecution referred me to section 366 of the Penal Code Act Cap 532 LFN (Abuja) 1990 and then set out the ingredients of the offence at page 13 of her written address. She submitted that using as genuine a forged document, the Defendants may not necessarily be the forger. According to the prosecution, all that is required is that the Defendants know it to be forged or has reason to believe it is forged. In the instant case the prosecution submitted that the Defendants knew the said allocation letters, (exhibits 1 and 2) were forged. In conclusion the prosecution urged me to uphold the submissions of the prosecution and hold the view that the prosecution has proved its case against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt and to accordingly convict them. Now in order to resolve the contending issues raised in the final written addresses of parties in this case, I am of the humble view that the following issue for determination is apt and it will assist the Honourable Court resolve and determine this case thus: 22