It is also well settled that in a criminal trial, the prosecution could discharge the burden placed on it by the provisions of Section 135(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act, to prove the ingredients of an offence, and invariably the guilt of an Accused Person beyond reasonable doubt, in any of the following well established and recognized manners, namely: 1. By the confessional statement of the accused which passes the requirement of the law; or 2. By direct evidence of eye witnesses who saw or witnessed the commission of the crime or offence; or 3. By circumstantial evidence which links the Accused Person and no other person to or with the commission of the crime or offence charged. See Lori V. State (1980)8 8-11 SC 18; Emeka V. State (2011)14 N.W.L.R (pt.734)668; Igabele V. State (2006)6 N.W.L.R (pt.975)100. Being therefore mindful of the well settled principles as espoused in the authorities cited in the foregoing, I shall proceed to examine the instant charge in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the prosecution has established the charges against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. I now proceed to consider the counts in relation to the evidence on records and in the process determining whether the required legal threshold of proof was met. Now under COUNT 1, the defendant is charged with the offence of obtaining money under false pretence contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Free Fraud Act and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act. It may be necessary to at this stage state the relevant full provision of Section 1of the Act to enable a full appreciation of its import and application. The section provides thus: “1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or law, any person who by any false pretence and with intent to defraud… (a) obtains, from any other person, in Nigeria or any other country for himself or any other person; or 10