Section 18 (d) ICPC Act 200. “Any person who offers to any public officer or being a public officer solicits counsels or accepts gratification as an inducement or reward for (d) showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavor in his capacity as such officer, shall notwithstanding that the officer did not have the power right or opportunity so to do or the inducement or reward was not in relation to affairs of the public body be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to five (5) years imprisonment with hard labour. Section. 132 penal code law “Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three (3) years or with fine or with both. It is settled law that in a criminal trial the onus rest throughout the proceedings on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; however does not mean proof beyond any shadow of doubt. In order that an accused person be entitled to the benefit of doubt the doubt must be genuine and reasonable arising from evidence before the court; see The State Vs Aibangbe (1988) 7 8c (pt 1) 96 at 132-133. Tanko Vs State (2008) 16 NWLR (pt 114) 597. The ingredients for the offence of accepting gratification are as follows. 1. That the accused is a public officer. 2. That he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept from some person a gratification for himself or any other person 3. That the gratification was not legal remuneration 4. That he accepted the gratification a motive or reward (a) For doing or forbearing to do any official act or (b) For showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official function favour or disfavor to someone or 3