They have been unable to establish this crucial fact. A CCTV footage would have revealed the identity of the culprit conclusively. The evidence relating to stealing of the alleged sum of money missing is to Vitalis Osunbor, and not the Defendant. That is my finding and I so hold. The prosecution has not been able to prove with specificity the actual amount of money missing or stolen. The lnternal Auditor Report carried out by the said Bank as to how much money is missing or stolen is not before the Court. No record of how much was loaded, withdrawn or stolen is not before this Court. lndeed, in the case of Dr. olu onagoruwa His Lordship, Tobi, JCA, as he then was stated: v. The state supra atP.47B, "Therefore, if an accused is charged with stealing a particular amount or named amount, the prosecution must stand or fall by proving the particular amount or by failing to prove same, respectively. The legal position is as exact as that. A contrary position will not only be oppressive to the accused but will certainly run against the provision of Section 33(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 where the accused is presumed innocent, until he is proved guilty. How can an accused be proved guilty if evidence is not led on the exact amount of money stolen in an indivisible charge such as the one the appellant faced? That will be tantamount to reversing justice and, we in this Court, cannot be a party to such reversion"" This Court is properly guided, and states quite unequivocally that the prosecution has not been able to prove this specific amount of money or any sum of money allegedly stolen by the Defendant. That is my finding and I so hold. It should also be noted that there was a prevarication of how much money was said to have been stolen. From Eleven Million it became Eleven tMillion, Four Hundred Thousand Naira. The Defendant was not found with the money stolen, nor, was he arrested at the very point of commission of the offence" The Prosecution has been unable to establish that it was the Defendant who was indeed the person who committed the offence, and so, this court is disentitled from convicting him. See the Case of Tajudeen Fabiyi V. The State (2015) 46 WRN at 45. Then on Count ll, this Court refers, and adopts the elements of conspiracy as enumerated in the case of Shodiya V . The State, supra. The Court also refers to the case of Patrick Njovens & 3 Ors. V. The State (1998) ACLR 224, Supreme Court stated that: 17