file his final written address. Hence, time for the Defendant having elapsed, his right to do so was foreclosed. In instant case therefore, in order to determine this case, I will and I hereby adopt the sole issue for determination as formulated by the learned prosecuting Counsel thus: “Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011?” To resolve the above issue, at the beginning of this judgment, I had re-produced the five Counts Charge against the Defendant. And the law is that in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable. Section 135 (1), (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) especially subsection (1) of Section 135 provides as follows: “(1) If the commission of crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” In the case of THE STATE V SQN LEADER D. T ONYEUKWU, (2004) LPELR 3116, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in considering the meaning of proof beyond reasonable doubt held:“It must be stated and emphasized that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean or import or connote beyond any degree of certainty. The term strictly means that within the bounds of evidence adduced and staring the Court in the face, no tribunal of justice worth its salt would convict on it having regard to the nature of the evidence led and the law marshalled out in the case. It can be said that evidence in a criminal trial that it susceptible to doubt cannot be said to have attained the height or standard of proof that can be said to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Regardless of what one might think in a given state of affairs, neither 15