court, From the evidence before PW3, the IPO stated that there were other monies complainants, three of them, from whom he took statements from, all alleging or complaining that the Defendant had collected monies from them based on her false representation, and, then vamoosed. ln the case of The State V. Letitia Osler (2005) 4 ACLR 502 at 518, it was stated that "lt is for the prosecution to that the representation made by the Respondent was false to his knowledge". The case of The State V. Nwokedi (1977) 3 SC 35 at 39 refers" The operative pretence is that which induced the victim to part with something to the Defendant. ln this instant case, the Defendant has demonstrated from the evidence before Court the falsity of her representations and pretence before PW1 and also PW2 that she was going to supply the said commodities, and, yet did not supply them. PW1 and PW2 acted upon the representation and pretence, hence, they parted with their monies . The former transaction between PW1 and the Defendant was just part of the larger plot to embolden the PW1 and also PW2 to part with their monies for goods never intended to be supplied by the Defendant. lt was the heat of the police action that made or propelled the Defendant to supply forty two bags of nice hurriedly to PW1 through her supposed husband, who in any case denied her before PW1. The evidence of PW1 in this regard that it was the Defendant's husband who tripped her off about the police action, which she, the Defendant attended to, in her evidence in chief that PW1 had taken steps to freeze her account and track her mobile line, becomes relevant. PW1 stated that it was even the Defendant's husband who supplied the forty two bags of low grade quality rice as opposed to what was agreed on that was hurriedly supplied. Looking at the evidence before this court, this is not a simple business transaction, or contract which failed. The Defendant made false representation and pretences for which PW1 and PWz fell victims to. That is the finding of this court, and, I so hold. ln sum, the prosecution has established it's case beyond reasonable doubt before this court. The defendant is found guilty in respect of Counts I and ll of the charge. That is my finding, and I so hold. Furthermore, the Defendant has an outstanding balance of N648,000= to pay to PW1 and the sum of N938,500 to 16