Police v Ongugo [2021] PGDC 59; DC6015 (15 April 2021)

DC6015

Papua New Guinea

In the District Court

Held at Waigani

Sitting in its Committal Jurisdiction

Comm. Nos. 952-955 of 2019

BETWEEN:
THE POLICE
Informant

AND:
WILLIE GUMAYAL ONGUGO
Defendant

Port Moresby: T. Ganaii
2020/2021: 26^th November, 15^th April

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – Committal Ruling pursuant to Section 95 of the DCA - Phase One of the Committal process – One count of False Pretence under section 404 (1) (a) (b) - One count of Forgery under section 462 (1) (a) (b) - One count of Uttering under section 463 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA – Sufficiency of Evidence on all of the elements of the offences charged – Evidence is sufficient to make out a prima facie case on Counts one, two and three against the defendant

COMMITTAL PRECEEDINGS – Committal Ruling pursuant to Section 95 of the DCA – The fourth charge of False Promise filed in Court is wrongly laid – Section 403 (2) is a definition provision and not an offence provision – Prosecutions did not make amendments - Charge is struck out

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – Committal Ruling pursuant to 100 of the DCA – Phase Two of the Committal Process - Section 96 administered – Defence filed a section 96 statement – Defence maintains the defence of General Denial – Defence produce evidence of how installment payments were made – Matters for trial proper – Ruling on Sufficiency of Evidence under section 95 is intact – Defendant is committed to stand trial in the National Court on one count of False Pretence under section 404 (1) (a) (b); one count of Forgery under sections 462 (1) (a) (b) and one count of Uttering under section 463 (1) (a) (b) of the Criminal Code Act
Cases cited
Akia v Francis PGNC 335; N6555
Maladina v Principal District Magistrate Posain Poloh [2004] PGNC 208
R-v- McEachern [1967-68] PNGLR 48
State v. Kai Wabu [1994] PNGLR 94
State v Kepo [2019] PGNC 74 N7807 (23^rd April 2019)
State v Oba [2016] PGNC 89
Yarume v Euga [1996] PGNC 24; N1476

Overseas Case
R v Austin Yam Unrep. Crim Appeal Case No 33 of 1994, Palmer J

Legislation
Criminal Code Act, Chapter 262
District Court Act, Chapter 40

Counsel
Police Prosecutor: Sergeant John Sangam For the Informant
Awalua and Associates Lawyers, Mr. R. Awalua For the Defendant

RULING ON SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE AND COMMITTAL

2021: 15^th of April

Introduction
Ganaii, SM. This is a ruling on whether a prima facie case is made out within the meaning of Section 95 (1) of the District Courts Act (DCA) where all the evidence of the Prosecution is received in the form of a Police Hand Up Brief (PHUB) and the Court is required to consider whether it is sufficient to put the defendant on trial.

2. The ruling also considers the administration of sections 96 and a final determination under section 100 of the DCA which completes the committal process.

Charge(s)
3. The defendant stands charged with the following four counts:

Count One False Pretence Section 404 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA

1. Between the 01^st of January 2013 to the 31^st of December 2018 the defendant did falsely pretended to Kombul Koima that he will buy his property/land and house valued at K500 000 at Section 25, Allotment 86, NPF Estate, Nine Mile, National Capital District, did obtain the original title of the property from the complainant with intent to defraud.
   

Thereby contravening Section 404 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA

Count Two Forgery Section 462 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA

2. Between the 01^st of January 2013 to the 31^st of December 2018 the defendant knowingly and fraudulently forged a document towit a Contract of Sale between the complainant Mary Koima and Kombul Koima by using Mrs. Mary Koima’s thumb print and forged the signature of Mr. Koima without their knowledge
   

Thereby contravening Section 462 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA

Count Three Uttering Section 463 (2) (a) (b) of the CCA

3. Between the 01^st of January 2013 to the 31^st of December 2018 did knowingly and fraudulently uttered a document namely a Contract Of Sale between Complainants Mary Koimba and Kombol Koima by using Mrs. Koimba’s thumb print and forging the signature of Mr. Kombul Koima without their knowledge and authority
   

Thereby contravening Section 463 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA

Count Four False Promise Section 403 (2) of the CCA

4. Between the 01^st of January 2013 to the 31^st of December 2018 did obtain property that i.e. original title of property or land at Section 25, Allotment 86, NPF Estate, Nine Mile, NCD for himself by falsely giving cash money, K2000 to the complainant and asking the complainant to get and keep the title for safe keeping which was misleading.
   

Thereby contravening Section 403 (2) of the CCA

Note: Section 403 is not an offence provision

Facts
4. The complainants Mr. and Mrs. Koima are home owners of a property described as property situated at Section 25, Allotment 86, NPF Estate, Nine Mile, NCD. Their property was acquired as compensation payment from the Management of Consap Development Security Guards (CDSG) over the death of their son in 2012 caused by CDSG security personal.

5. The defendant who is known to the complainants had approached them and asked to purchase their property at the price of K500 000. The defendant also asked that the complainants evict the old tenants so that he could go in and rent the property. Initially the complainant’s had rented out their property to a tenant at K2000 per month.

6. On the 13^th of March 2012 the defendant made a part payment of K2000 as bond and advanced rental fee payment and moved into the property. He promised that he would apply for a Bank loan to purchase the house. He then asked the complainant to give him the Owner’s Copy of the title for safe keeping.

7. The complainant without hesitation gave the Owner’s original copy of the tile of the property to the defendant on the belief that the defendant being a genuine businessmen and a prominent figure in their community would honour his commitment. He released the title to the defendant for safe keeping until their agreement was reached.

8. The defendant after obtaining the Original Owner’s Copy of the title to the complainant’s property went away and never returned until 2014. When he did return, he came with a person who posed as a bank officer and told the complainant that the bank officer would be assisting him to obtain a loan for the purchase of the complainant’s property. The defendant and the person who presented himself as a bank officer asked the complainant to sign a certain document. The complainant is illiterate and unable to read and write. The complainant believed that the documents were for the defendant’s application for loan for the purchase of his property and so he went ahead and signed where they told him to.

9. From 2014 to 2018, a total of four years the defendant was inconsistent in paying his rental dues or making the on time to the complainants. In 2018 when the complainant approached the defendant and asked him to pay the outstanding rental payments, the defendant told the complainant that it was not necessary anymore for him (the defendant) to pay rentals as the title of the property had already been transferred to his (the defendant’s) name.

10. Upon hearing this, the complainant was shocked. He disputed the defendant’s statement as he had never sold his property to the defendant and had never transferred title to the defendant. The complainant wrote a complaint letter to the Department of Lands and Physical Planning and the Fraud and Anti-Corruption Squad to investigate the matter. During Police investigations Police uncovered several documents namely:

1. Owners Copy of Title changed from the complainant’s name to the defendant’s name registered on the 01^st of November 2013;
   
2. The Contract of Sale showing both Mrs. Koima’s thumb mark and signature dated September 2013 and
   
3. A statutory Instrument with the Lands Department showing the complainant Mr. Koima’s signature as the transferor of the property dated 12^th September 2013.
   

11. Police say the complainant Mr. Koima nor his wife Mrs. Koima did not agree to transfer title as there was no price paid. The documents namely the Owners Copy of Title, the Contract of Sale and the Statutory Instruments were forged and uttered without the consent of the complainants.

12. Police case is one based on circumstantial evidence where Police is saying that the defendant had falsely pretended and obtained the copy of the title and had therefore forged and uttered the said documents in order to fraudulently transfer title. The defendant was thereby charged accordingly for False Pretence, False Promise, Forgery and Uttering.

Issue
13. The issue before this court is whether a prima facie case is made out and that is whether the evidence received from the prosecution is sufficient to warrant the committal of the defendant to stand trial at the National Court.

14. The sub-issue is whether there is prima facie sufficient evidence on each of the elements of all the offences and whether the witnesses’ statements are admissible.

The Law
The Law on Committal Proceedings

15. Part VI of the District Courts Act (DCA) provides the legal basis for committal proceedings specifically under Section 94 to Section 100 of the DCA.

16. The Committal Process whilst requiring the Court to make a finding on the evidence presented by the Police, this process is very administrative in that the Court need only to form an opinion that there is a bona fide prima facie case against the Defendant; as per Akia v Francis ^[1]and R-v- McEachern^[2].

17. In the matter of Maladina v Principal District Magistrate Posain Poloh ^[3] His Honour Injia DCJ (as he then was); expressed in his opinion that the Committal process involves two phases, the first is when the committing magistrate makes a finding on whether or not there is sufficient evidence and whether a prima facie case is made out under Section 95 of the DCA on whether to discharge or commit the defendant only after the Court administers an examination of a defendant under Section 96 where the defendant is asked whether he desires to give evidence.

18. Furthermore, in the case of Yarume v Euga ^[4]the National Court said in respect to committal hearings that the process of committal requires proper and reasonable assessment of the evidence with a view to see whether all the elements or ingredients of the offence is present before he can commit the accused; Section 94B, 94C, 95 and 100 to be read together.

Evidence In Written Statement
19. Section 94C requirements in the committal process must be fulfilled and is in the following terms:

94C. Regard to Evidence, Etc.

(1) When conducting a committal hearing under this Part, the Court may, subject to Subsection (2), have regard to–

(a) the evidence contained in a written statement; and
(b) documents and exhibits,

of which a copy has been served on the defendant under Section 94(1) or made available for inspection under Section 94(2).

(2) Before admitting a written statement, the Court shall be satisfied that the person who made the statement had read and understood it, or if unable to read, had had it read to him in a language that he understood.

20. The case precedent on this principle of law in relation to written statements is in the case of The State v. Kai Wabu^[5] . In Kai Wabu (supra) the court held that the combined effect of ss 94 (1A) and 94C (2) of the District Courts Act is that the committal Court must conduct an enquiry to ensure that the makers of statements had full knowledge of the contents, correctness, and truth of written statements they are responsible for signing. This requirement is mandatory and requires strict compliance. This enquiry is an independent one, which the Court must conduct in the exercise of its judicial function. The court further stated that after having conducted the enquiry, the Court has discretion to admit or reject the written statement. The Court must then record the nature and extent of the enquiry conducted and records its findings. A failure to conduct such enquiry and record its finding may result in voiding the committal.

The law on the offending provision(s)

403. False Pretence: Wilfully False Promise.

(1) A representation made by words or otherwise of a matter of fact, past or present that–

(a) is false in fact; and

(b) the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true,

is a false pretence.

(2) A promise made by words or otherwise to do or omit to do anything by a person who at the time of making the promise–

(a) does not intend to perform it; or

(b) does not believe he will be able to perform it,

is a wilfully false promise.

21. Section 404 provides for the offence of false pretence and wilfully false promise in the following way:

404. Obtaining Goods or Credit by False Pretence or Wilfully False Promise.
     

(1) A person who by a false pretence or wilfully false promise, or partly by a false pretence and partly by a wilfully false promise, and with intent to defraud–

(a) obtains from any other person any chattel, money or valuable security; or

(b) induces any other person to deliver to any person any chattel, money or valuable security,

is guilty of a crime.

Division 3. – Forgery and Like Offences: Personation.

Subdivision A. – Forgery in General.

459. Interpretation of Division 3.

......

“document” includes–

(a) a register or register-book, or a part of a register or register-book; and

(b) any–

(i) book; and

(ii) paper, parchment or other material, used for writing or printing,

that is marked with any letters or marks denoting words, or with any other signs capable of conveying a definite meaning to persons conversant with them, but does not include trade marks on articles of commerce;

“writing” includes a mere signature and a mark of any kind.

(2) A document or writing is said to be false–

(a) ...

(b) if the whole or some material part of the document or writing–

(i) purports to be made by or on behalf of some person who did not make it or authorize it to be made; or

(ii) where the time or place of making is material–is, with a fraudulent intent, falsely dated as to the time or place of making even though it is made by or by the authority of the person by whom it purports to be made; or

(c) if the whole or some material part of the document or writing purports to be made by or on behalf of a person who does not, in fact, exist; or

(d) if it is made in the name of an existing person, either by that person himself or by his authority, with the fraudulent intention that it should pass as being made by a person, real or fictitious, other than the person who made it or authorized it to be made.

....

460. Definition of Forgery.

(1) In this section, “make a false document or writing” includes–

(a) altering a genuine document or writing in a material part, whether by erasure, obliteration, removal or otherwise; and

(b) making a material addition to the body of a genuine document or writing; and

(c) adding to a genuine document or writing a false date, attestation, seal or other material matter.

(2) A person who makes a false document or writing, knowing it to be false, and with intent that it may in any way be used or acted on as genuine, whether in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere–

(a) to the prejudice of a person; or

(b) with intent that a person may, in the belief that it is genuine, be induced to do or refrain from doing any act, whether in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere,

is said to forge the document or writing.

....

(5) It is immaterial that the forger of any thing forged did not intend that a particular person–

(a) should use or act on it; or

(b) should be prejudiced by it; or

(c) be induced to do or refrain from doing any act.

(6) It is immaterial that the thing forged is incomplete, or does not purport to be a document, writing or seal that would be binding in law for any particular purpose, if it is so made, and is of such a kind, as to indicate that it was intended to be used or acted on.

Subdivision B. – Offences.

462. Forgery in General: Punishment in Special Cases.

(1) A person who forges any document, writing or seal is guilty of an offence that, unless otherwise stated, is a crime.

Penalty: If no other punishment is provided–imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

463. Uttering False Documents and Counterfeit Seals.

(1) In this section, “fraudulently” means with an intention–

(a) that the thing in question shall be used or acted on as genuine, whether in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere, to the prejudice of some person, whether a particular person or not; or

(b) that some person, whether a particular person or not, will, in the belief that the thing in question is genuine, be induced to do or refrain from doing some act, whether in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere.

(2) A person who knowingly and fraudulently utters a false document or writing, or a counterfeit seal, is guilty of an offence of the same kind and is liable to the same punishment as if he had forged the thing in question

......

Elements of the Offences

22. Elements of the offence of False Pretence are found in the case law of State v Kepo^[6]) lists the elements of the offence as follows:

1. a person;
2. who by false pretence;

100. or wilfully false promise;

4. with intent to defraud (knowing it to be false);
5. through means of such pretence or false promise obtains property from another person; and
6. with intent to defraud
   

23. The elements of the offence of Forgery and Uttering in the case of State v Oba ^[7] are:

Forgery

1. A person
2. On a date
3. At a place
4. who forges
5. any document, writing or seal
   

Uttering

1. At a place
2. Knowingly and fraudulently (with intention)
3. That the thing (document)
4. Will be used or acted upon as genuine
5. To the prejudice of some other person
6. Utters
7. A false document

24. In the case of R v Austin Yam^[8] the definition of Uttering includes “an attempt to use or deal with or attempt to induce any person to use, deal with or act upon the thing in question”.
Prosecution Case
25. To support its case, the Prosecution produced seven (07) witness statements. The statements are from: the main complainants namely: Mr. and Mrs. Koima; Akina Kamane and Steven Kuman who are members of the community who witnessed the compensation payment of the house given to the complainants; Jemima Solap of Department of Lands and Physical Planning and Basi Sopata and Helen Larsin as the Police Corroborator and case investigator.

Documentary Evidence
26. Police rely on the following documentary evidence:

1. Record of Interview, dated 01^st May 2019, English version, containing denials, at pages 60 to 68 of the PHUB
   
2. Owner’s Copy of the Title showing the complainant Kombul Koima as the title holder at page 12 PHUB
   
3. Contract of Sale between the complainant Kombul Koima and the defendant William Onglo dated in 2013, at pages 13-26 of the PHUB
   
4. Department of Lands Transfer Instrument at pages 27-29 of the PHUB
   
5. Department of Lands Receipt No 366755 dated 01^st November 2013
   
6. Owners Copy of the Title with records of the alleged fraudulent transfer from the complainant to the defendant at page 31 of the PHUB
   
7. Copy of Title with records of alleged fraudulent transfer from the complainant to the defendant showing these information: ANZ Bank mortgage; Discharge of mortgage; Title with change of defendant’s name and BSP Bank Mortgage. At page 53 of the PHUB.
   
8. Antecedent Report – Contains the personal particulars of the defendant and whether there are prior convictions. Not to be considered at this stage. At pages 89-09 of PHUB
   

Defence Submissions
27. Defence filed their submissions on the 27^th of January 2020. I have read their submission in full. They submit as follows:

1. The defendant remained silent during the conduct of the Police interview. Silence does not denote guilt (St v Takawa Pereya & Ors (2008) N3494).
   
2. The complainant’s story that the title was given to the defendant for safe keeping is unbelievable. There was an arrangement for the accused to make payment by installment for purchase of the property. The complainant agreed to that.
   
3. The complainant knowingly and intentionally signed the documents he now disputes. This is because of the arrangement he had with the defendant.
   
4. The previous tenant and the defendant were paying the same rental amount of K2, 000. It was illogical for the complainant to change tenants as both were paying the same amount. Defence say the complainant had an arrangement with the defendant to sell his property by installments and that was why he got the defendant in to live on the property and pay rentals and installment payments for purchase of the property.
   
5. The story of the complainant that the defendant came to him with a Bank officer should not be believed as there is no evidence to support that.
   
6. The complainant did sign the transfer instrument because he would have been in NCD and not at home.
   
7. The statement of the complainant’s wife Mrs. Mary Kombul Koima corroborates that of her husband, Mr. Kombul. Defence adopted same arguments as above and submit that the statement is not to be believed as it contained inconsistencies.
   
8. Statement of Lands officer Jemima Solap show that the transfer instrument could not have been signed on 21^st November 2019 as it was the date of registering it. The signing could have been done earlier. As such, the complainant was not at home, he was in NCD and would have signed the instrument. His signature was not forged but was intentionally signed by the complainant pursuant to an agreement they had that the defendant would purchase the property through installment payments.
   

28. The evidence of the balance of the witnesses does not have evidentiary value on the elements of the charges.

Prosecutions Submissions

29. Prosecutions filed a written submission date 10^th of March 2020 which I have read in full. Their submissions can be summarised as follows:
    
30. There is sufficient prima facie evidence on the charges.
    
31. The defendant expressed his interest to purchase the property.
    
32. There was no written offer and acceptance nor an agreement to buy and sell. However, the verbal agreement for the purchase price according to the complainant is K500 000.
    
33. The defendant asked for the Owner’s Copy of the Title for safe keeping but had other intentions of illegally transferring title.
    
34. The defendant moved in to live in the property and the arrangement with the complainant was for him to make installment payments, however, he defaulted for four years.
    
35. As a result of the default, the complainants followed up on the payments only to hear from the defendant himself that the title had been transferred to the defendant’s name.
    
36. The complainants did not willingly, knowingly and intentionally sign any documents namely the Transfer instruments and the Contract of Sale as there was no payments made for the transfer of the title.
    
37. The defendant’s action of obtaining Mrs. Koima’s thumb mark under the pretext of her confirming receipt of payment of K2, 000 to purchase airline ticket for her husband to come from home amounted to forgery.
    
38. The complainants did not sign any documents namely the transfer instruments and the Contract of Sale.
    
39. The signatures were forged and thumb mark fraudulently obtained.
    

Court’s Assessment of the Evidence in the light of the Law

40. The statements of witnesses are admissible having complied with section 94C of the DCA and the principles in Kai Wabu’s case.
    
41. The fourth charge under section 403 (2) of the CCA entitled by Police as a charge of False Promise does not stand as section 403 (2) is an interpretation provision defining False pretence and is not an offence provision. The charge was wrongly laid. The appropriate charge is section 404. There was no amendment made by the prosecution. This court will struck out this charge.
    
42. For the balance of the charges the court makes the following analysis that there is sufficient evidence showing that:
    
43. The signatures of the complainant Mr. Koima on the transfer instruments and Contract of Sale were not his signatures and therefore amount to forgery;
    
44. The thumb mark of the complainant’s wife, Mrs. Mary Koima was obtained fraudulently in the Contract of Sale when she was asked to put her thumb mark to confirm receipt of payment of K2, 000 to assist with the purchase of Mr. Koima’s plane ticket from home and therefor was obtained fraudulently;
    
45. The complainants deny knowingly and intentionally signing and presenting any documents to the Lands Department for effect of the transfer of Title; and
    
46. The presentation of the Contract of Sale and the Transfer Instrument amounts to uttering.
    
47. On prima facie assessment of the elements of these charges, there is sufficient prima facie circumstantial evidence to infer that the complainants did not freely and knowingly sign any documents to effect transfer of their property to the defendant.
    
48. The court will now not consider any defence and find that there was a valid transfer as the complainants are not aware of a valid transfer and there is suffieinct evidence supporting their case.
    
49. The matters raised by the defendant appear to be their defence of general denial to false pretence, forgery and uttering. They also raised questions of credibility in the complainants’ stories which are rightly matters for trial proper. The trial court would hear the full evidence including the defence case before a weighing up of evidence is made.
    
50. For now, I find that there is sufficient evidence showing the following:
    
    1. The defendant’s action of obtaining the Owners Copy of the Title by promising to keep it safe and then using it to effect transfer of title without the complainant’s knowledge and consent amounts to False Pretence
       
    2. The defendant’s action of forging the complainant’s signature and thumb mark on the Transfer of Title and Contract of Sale documents amounts to forgery and
       
    3. The defendant’s action of presenting those documents to the Land Department amounted to Uttering.
       

Findings

51. On the basis of the above analysis, this court as a result of the performance of its committal function as an investigator into the strength of the case being mounted by prosecution and not as an adjudicator, has assessed the evidence in totality and makes the final finding that there is sufficient evidence on the essential elements of the charges of all of False Pretence, Forgery and Uttering.
    
52. The court accepts that the witness statements comply with s94 of the DCA and the principle enunciated in the case of Kai Wabu.
    
53. I find sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case that the defendant did commit the alleged offences of False Pretence, Forgery and Uttering. Consequently, I form a bona fide opinion against the defendant that there is sufficient case against him in order to commit him to stand trial on one count of False Pretence contrary to section 404 (1) (a); one count of Forgery contrary to section 462 (1) and one count of Uttering contrary to s463 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA.

Administration of Section 96 of the DCA

54. Section 96 of the DCA was explained to the defendant. The defendant has exercised his right to make a written statement. He filed his statement on the 10^th of December 2020. The following was stated:
    
    1. The Owner’s copy of the Title was given on the understanding that the defendant will make installment payments and purchase the property at a price of K350 000 and not K500 000.
       
    2. The defendant had made numerous installment payments which have been recorded and countersigned by the complainants (Mr. and Mrs. Koima). The defendant had attached the receipts of the installment payments (Annexure “A”).
       
    3. These payments were made to cater for financial needs like school fees, medical expenses, customary obligations, Christmas expenses and etc.
       
    4. There could not be any default in installment payments because as per their agreement financial assistance were given to the complainant as described above. The defendant is saying that those financial assistance covered for the installment payments.
       
    5. There was no fraud on the defendant’s part.
       
    6. There is a record of a letter by the complainant stating that the purchase price was K350 000. Evidence is attached as Annexure “C”.
       
    7. There was a verbal agreement to sell and purchase the property.
       
    8. The defendant had built a house for the complainants to settle and also helped them to deal with social issues faced by the complainant’s misbehaving sons.
       
    9. The defendant did not say anything during the Police interview as he did not want them to use his own evidence against him.
       
    10. The defendant can produce all the receipts of the financial assistance he gave to the complainants to show that he had met his part of the deal.
        
    11. The defendant never forged the complainant’s signature.
        
    12. The complainant is trying to negotiate a mediation in this matter even after the court had made a ruling (under section 95 of the DCA).
        
55. The court had considered the defendant’s section 96 and rule as follows:
    
    1. The defence of General Denial is a matter for trial proper.
       
    2. The defendant’s receipts of payments and whether they are regarded as installment payments or rental payments can be properly argued at trial.
       
    3. The issue of whether the purchase price was K300 000 or K500 000 and whether the amount was met are matters for trial.
       
    4. The complainants do not agree with the defendant’s story that he had made his installments and completed the payment of K500 000.
       
    5. The complainants do not agree with the defendant that they freely and knowingly signed or placed their thumb mark on the necessary documentation.
       
    6. The defendant’s defence of general denial is a matter for the trial court to decide on.
       
    7. The ruling on sufficiency of evidence is intact.
       

Final Orders
56. I make the following orders:

1. There is sufficient evidence to commit the defendant to stand trial in the National Court on one count of False Pretence under section 404 (1) (a); one count of Forgery contrary to section 462 (1) (a) (b) and one count of Uttering contrary to section 463 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA respectively.
2. The defendant is committed to stand trial in the National Court at Waigani on one count of False Pretence under section 404 (1) (a); one count of Forgery contrary to section 462 (1) (a) (b) and one count of Uttering contrary to section 463 (1) (a) (b) of the CCA respectively.
3. The defendant shall appear at the Waigani National Court, Criminal Listings on Monday 31^st of May 2021 at 9:30am.

4. Defendant’s bail is extended on same conditions.

Police Prosecution: For the Informant

Awalua and Associates Lawyers For the Defendant

---

^[1] [2016] PGNC 335; N6555
^[2] [1967-68] PNGLR 48
^[3] [2004] PGNC 208
^[4] [1996] PGNC 24; N1476
^[5] [1994] PNGLR 94 (Injia, J.)
^[6] [2019] PGNC 74, N7807 (23^rd April 2019)
^[7] [2016] PGNC 89
^[8] Unrep. Crim Appeal Case No 33 of 1994, Palmer J