From the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Prosecution therefore (the oral evidence of PW1 – PW3 and Exhibits PW2A, PW3A, PW3B, PW3C and PW3D), it is clearly established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Defendant and his other syndicate members whose names he stated in Exhibit PW3B to be Ataye, Nnamdi, Peace and Linda, had by false pretence defrauded PW1, Dozie Ogbonna of a total sum of N2,514,000.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Naira). I therefore hold that the Prosecution has also established the offence of obtaining by false pretence against the Defendant contained in the second count of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite law that where the Prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden shifts to the Defendant to establish reasonable doubt. See: Section 135(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the cases of MUSA v STATE (2014) LPELR-24026(CA), per Abba Aji, JCA at page 51, paras. E – G; and ETUMIONU v AG DELTA STATE (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 404) 719, per Ige, JCA at page 730 paras. B – C. In the instant case, the Defendant herein had jumped bail after entering his plea and the Court was forced to order his trial in absentia after all efforts to locate him and to compel him to attend trial were fruitless. It is trite law that fair hearing is a question of the opportunity of being heard. Once a party has been given the due opportunity to be heard, the requirement of fair hearing would have been duly observed. See: DARMA v ECO BANK (2017) LPELR-41663(SC), per Ogunbiyi, JSC at pages 33 – 34, paras. F – C; S & D CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v AYOKU & ANOR. (2011) LPELR-2965(SC), per 32