Exhibit ICPC BGKB2 which is the report of the Committee headed by PW2, shows that the 1st and 2nd Defendants misappropriated the sums of N152,003 and N185,300 respectively. The 2nd Defendant has also admitted this fact in his statement marked as Exhibit ICPC BGKB6. PW3 and PW4, all testified to the fact that the 1st Defendant under paid them their salary to which he owed them the sum of N37,000 and N19,203 respectively. In view of all the foregoing, I hold that the prosecution has also proved all the elements of the offence contained in the second charge beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly convict them as charged. Counsel to the 1st Defendant contended that failure to tender Exhibits ICPC BGKB1 and 2 through PW2 and PW3 who made them instead of through PW1 who was the Investigating Officer, rendered them documentary hear say and not admissible and should therefore be rejected. - Nepa V. Adeyemi (2007)3 NWLR pt. 1021 p 315. - NAB Ltd V. Shuaib (1991)4 NWLR pt 185 p 450. In his response, the Prosecuting Counsel submitted that Exhibit ICPC BGKB1 though made by PW3 Muhammed Yusuf, became public document upon receipt of same by the ICPC Office pursuant to Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and can be admitted in evidence through an Investigation Officer of the case. - Onwuzurike V. Edozien (2016)6 NWLR pt 1508 p 215. - Udo V. State (2016)12 NWLR pt 1525 p. 24. PW1 in person of Haruna Aminu testified before this Court that he recovered Exhibits ICPC BGKB1 and 2 in the course of investigation. It is trite law that the evidence of an Investigating Officer in respect of what he saw or discovered in the course of investigation, cannot be described 17