evoke the provisions of section 11 of the Act and section 314 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and order restitution to the victims. Having listened to the submissions of both Counsel, it is correct and that is the law that even where a law prescribes mandatory sentence without an option of fine, the Court has discretion to order payment of fine in lieu of imprisonment. However, the discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously. In the instant case, I have noted the plea of mercy submitted by the convict’s Counsel. I will be lenient on the convict. And I must equally observed that these type of offences in our society are becoming too rampant and despite of several convictions secured in related cases, the offenders continue to commit same unabated. In fact it appears when a conviction is secured, and an option of fine is given, it gives the offenders more impetus and courage to do more rather than abstaining, restraining or becoming born again, hence the conviction becomes a flavour that greases their elbows to do more. We therefore have a duty to cleanse up our society of bad eggs like the convict. Be it as it may, I am not sure if the convict is remorseful in his action. The convict demonstrated this at the proceedings of yesterday. And it is also on record that the convict at trial stage, was calling the investigators and showering abuses on them. The investigators are only doing their Constitutional duties and not subject to the caprises of the convict. Thus, having said the above, the convicts is hereby sentenced to a term of two (2) years imprisonment in respect of count one for the offence of obtaining by false pretence punishable under section 1(3) of the Act. In relation to section 364 of the Penal Code in relation to counts 2,3,4 and 5, on each count, a fine of 34