With respect to the charges of theft, it is submitted that the prosecution has the onus to prove that the accused had intention to be fraudulent and that the accused actually stole the items. In the instant case, the cheque books/leafs from the evidence of the prosecution none of the witnesses testified to the fact that the accused person stole the said cheque book or leafs that were used for the various withdrawals rather the evidence points to the fact that upon genuine transactions the accused person, was issued with the cheques and also the necessary mandate to actualize the said payments. Court is referred to the evidence of PW1 to the effect that all procedure was followed when he paid the accused person. Court is urged to discharge and acquit the accused person on Count 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Charge Sheet. See CHIA v STATE (1996) 6 NWLR Pt 455. On the charges of forgery, it is the submission that the underlining position of the law in the instant case is that the prosecution must endeavour to show from the evidence of its witnesses that the accused did undertake to forge the documents in this case (the cheque and the confirmation letters). From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that the prosecution has not in any manner placed before the court any piece of evidence to ground the charge of forgery and most importantly the absence of the nominal complainant whose signature is alleged to have been forged is very fatal to the case of the prosecution. See ALAKE v STATE (1993) NWLR (Pt 265) 260 at 270 Para G – H. Court is urged to hold that in line with the 13