(b) induce any other person, in Nigeria or any other country, to deliver to any person; or (c) obtains any property, whether or not the property is obtained or its delivery is induced through t he medium of a contract induced by the false pretence, commits an offence under this Act.” The above provision appears to me clear. In understanding its correct import, it is important to situate what false pretence connotes. Section 20 of the same Act defines false pretence as follows: “false pretence” means a representation, whether deliberate or reckless, made by word in writing or by conduct, of a matter of fact or law, either past or present, which representation is false in fact or law, and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true.” Learned counsel to the prosecution has in his address and relying on the above provisions and decided cases set out the key ingredients needed to be established in proof of this count. In Ijuaka V. C.O.P (1976) 6 SC 99, the Supreme Court instructively stated as follows: “In order that a person may be convicted of that offence, it has been said hundreds of times that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that there was some mis-statement which in law amounts to a pretence, that is, a mis-statement as to existing fact made by the accused person; that it was false and false to his knowledge; that it acted upon the mind of the person who parted with the money; that the proceeding on the part of the accused person was fraudulent. That is the only meaning to apply to the words with intent to defraud.” Having delineated from the above decision, the necessary elements of the offence, the simple, albeit delicate task and I have already alluded to it, is to examine the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in the light of the legal ingredients required to establish the offence for which the defendant was charged. It is settled that the before a conclusion can be arrived at that an offence has been committed by an accused person, the court must look for the ingredients of the offence and ascertain critically that the acts of the accused person come within the confines of the particulars of the offence charged. See Amadi V. State (1993)8 NWLR (pt.314) 646 at 664. 11