Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) owner occupier Kubwa. Secondly being a public servant, he accepted the sum of N560,000 from Mrs. Ajadi in order to assist her collect her letter of offer of sale in respect of Block 13 flat 2 FCDA owner occupier houses in Kubwa. Thirdly he pretended to be an official of the FCDA responsible for sale of Federal Government houses and in such assumed character he received the sum of N560,000 from Mrs. Ajadi before she can collect her offer letter in respect of Block 13 flat 2 FCDA owners occupier Kubwa. In her evidence in Chief Mrs. Ajadi told the court that she was not given an offer letter by the committee on sale of Federal Government houses. And on exhibit A the petition written by Mrs. Ajadi to the Chairman ICPC, she stated that she was not given letter of offer due to months rents deduction. It is crystal clear that Mrs. Ajadi had no letter of offer in respect of Block 13 flat 2 owner occupier Kubwa as at the time she met with the defendant. Therefore the charge before the court does not correspond with the evidence before the court. in other words the charge is at variance with the evidence led. In Mohammed Ibrahim VS State (2015) 61 NSCQR 1097 at 1767 Akahs JSC held thus: “There is therefore a discrepancy between the location of the alleged crime (locus criminis) and the evidence led. Inspite of this discrepancy the prosecution did not apply to amend the charge to align with the evidence adduced to the charge. The law is that where the charge laid is at variance with the evidence tendered the conviction of the appellant will not stand”. PW1 Mrs. Ajadi told the court that she got her offer through ICPC. That confirms the fact that at the time she met the defendant there was no letter of offer or rather she had no letter of offer. The letter of offer that was given to the 7