Society Limited with the police with the promise that the accused would settle the liability of the said person. It has been stated in plethora of authorities that no case to answer may be properly made and upheld in the following circumstances. 1. When there has been no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged offence either directly, circumstantially, or inferentially. 2. When the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal can convict on it, see IBEZIAKO VS COP (1963) 1 SCNLR 99, UBANATU VS COP (Supra) @38 & UGWU VS STATE (Supra) @188, to mention a few. No case submission is upheld where the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not disclose a prima facie case. See UBANATU VS COP (Supra) @37 & UGWU VS STATE (Supra) @188. As stated in these cases, a prima facie case means a ground for proceeding against the accused. It is not the same proof which comes later when the court must find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. But such evidence which if uncontradicted and believed would be difficult to prove the case against the accused. Now having warned myself that it is not the proof beyond reasonable doubt that I would seek the evidence to establish in this case to show a prima facie case against the accused, it is my duty to be satisfied that there is in Law a nexus between the criminal conduct and the offence the accused was charged with. In SHATA VS FRN (2009) 10 NWLR (PT 1149) 403@413, it was stated that such a connection must be apparent on the face of the evidence led by the prosecution. The ground upon which the accused person premised its no case submission is that the prosecution has led no evidence to establish the essential element of the offence of cheating the accused was charged with. Parties seem to be ad idem that for the offence of cheating under section 320(a) of the penal code, the following ingredients must be established. i. ii. iii. iv. That the person deceived delivered to someone or consented that some person shall retain certain property, That the person deceived was induced by accused to part with the property, That the person acted under the inducement of the accused, and That the accused had acted fraudulently or dishonestly when inducing that person. The ingredients of cheating under section 320(b) of the penal code are. i. ii. iii. iv. That the person deceived, did or omitted to do something which he was no bound to do or omits to do, That the person acted upon the inducement in consequence of his having been deceived by the accused, That the accused so induced that person intentionally That the act of omission caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, or property. It is pertinent at this stage to point out that the accused was charged with the offence of (b) of section 320 of the penal code and not the offence of cheating under (a) of the said section. Be that as is may, so long as the evidence establish essential elements of either offence, the no case submission would