The Respondent was arraigned for two counts of forgery and a third of uttering a false document. The presiding Magistrate held the view that the case for the prosecution fell short and the Respondent was, accordingly, acquitted. The Appellant herein was dissatisfied but, on the first appeal, the High Court found no cause to vary the verdict of the trial court and the appeal was dismissed. Still discontented, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to impugn the decision of the first appeal court. The state argued that the judge erred by holding that section 205 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires qualification of the Handwriting Expert to be advanced in evidence and that the particulars of Government Gazette that appointed PW3 as Handwriting Expert ought to be led in prosecution evidence. The state also stated that the judge erred by holding that where there are two conflicting Handwriting Expert Reports as the Jurisdiction of the court is to admit only evidence of competent person dully appointed by Director of Public Prosecutions.