should hasten to point out that although the usual practice in a charge of forgery is to call in evidence the person whose signature is alleged to have been forged or someone familiar with it to testify that the signature on the document in question is not his own, or generally to call evidence showing that it is the signature of a person who does not exist, such practice may be dispensed with where the evidence is so overwhelming that the document is a spurious fabrication. See ODULERE v. QUEEN (Digest of Supreme Court Cases, Vol. 10, pp. 139 – 140). But the land documents involved in the instant case have not been shown to be spurious fabrications, and this is certainly not a proper case in which to dispense with the necessity of calling the named persons whose signatures appear in the documents allegedly forged to disavow the document and settle the matter once and for all. What is more, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the accused person, the original land documents allegedly forged by the accused person are not in evidence before the court. The PW1 testified that Mrs. Agboga (PW2) (who works with AMAC) collected N170,000 from him and effected change of ownership from the names on the original title documents. In effect, Plot CP 1492 measuring about 5 hectares in the name of Lartis Nigeria Limited was changed to Jodeb & Ted Nig. Ltd; whilst Plot MF 719D in the name of Adas Nig. Ltd measuring 1 hectare was equally changed to Jodeb and Ted Nig. Ltd. The question that arises, and which the Prosecution did not address, is how their own witness, Mrs. Agboga (PW2) was able to effect change of ownership, if the original documents handed over to her were allegedly forged by the accused. Especially is this so when it is borne in mind that both Mrs. Agboga (PW2) and Mr. Daniel (PW1) stated in evidence that they neither knew not met the accused person in the course of the transaction. In a charge of forgery, the primary document allegedly forged constitutes 26 | P a g e