(2015) 46 WRN at Ratio lwas cited in support, as well as Section 36(12) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, lggg as amended. On PW2's evidence, it was stressed that the Police did not carry out investigation relating to documentary evidence to show how much was loaded in the ATM machines or records of the alleged stolen monies. lt was also canvassed that the PW2's evidence was anchored on what prospective witness told her during the course of investigation, and, so such evidence from her amounts to hearsay which cannot form the basis of any judgment. The case of Ekpo v" The state (2002) NWLR (Part 712) 292 at 304 was referred to. It was also stressed that vital witnesses such as the Bank lVanager, Securities Personnel attached, the Chief security Officer did not testify in Court, since their evidence may determine the case one way or another, and know something significant. The case of Afoloke V. The state (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 538) 812 a|820 - 821 was cited on who a vital witness, and that failure to call a vital witness is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. On lssue No. ll, it is submitted that the ingredients of the offences as contained in the charge must be proved" The case of Olamolu V. The State (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1339) 580 at 600 was cited with regards to the elements for stealing which are: (1)Ownership of the thing stolen (2) That the thing is capable of being stolen (3) That the thing was fraudulenfly taken or converted. PW1 who was told by the Manager and also that of PW2 are hearsay evidence, and, so inadmissible. Furthermore, it was highlighted that there is no record of the actual amount stolen, and how much money that was loaded, backed with documentary evidence to that effects, which is sorely lacking in this case. lt is further submitted that vital witnesses such as the Bank Manager, security personnel and Chief Security Officer were not taken or brought before this Court. It is submitted that it is only the Bank l/anager who can glve evidence as to whether stealing took place in that Bank. It was submitted that the evidence of It is submitted that doubt which exist in this case should be resolved favour of the Defendant. The case of Shehu V. The State (2010) 22 WRN 1 at was cited, and relied upon in this regard. in 11 On the evidence of PW2, it was submitted that PW2 stated that under investigation, it was the sum of Eleven Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira 8