then testified that the 1st Defendant state that he does not have another land and that he will refund the money to PW1. DW2 testified that the 1st Defendant issued a cheque of N5,000,000.00 for the refund of PW1’s money. However, DW2 testified that when the time to present the cheque came for payment, the cheque was presented and there was no money in the account. DW2 finally testified that the Defendants agreed to refund the sum of N8,000,000.00 to PW1 and his share for the refund is N3,000,000.00. After the conclusion of evidence of both the prosecution and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, final written address was ordered to be filed and exchanged. In the final written address of the 2nd Defendant’s Counsel, two issues were formulated for determination as follows:(1) Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the 2nd Defendant beyond reasonable doubt? (2) Whether the 2nd Defendant is criminally liable for the offences charged. ISSUE ONE. At paragraphs 4,01- 4.04 of the final written address of the 2nd Defendant’s Counsel, he submitted that by section 36 (5) of the Constitution, Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) the 2nd Defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He submitted that in line with this constitutional requirement, the prosecution failed to prove the offences the 2nd Defendant is charged beyond reasonable doubt. He relied on the cases of ALABI V STATE, (1993) 9SCNJ (pt1) page 109. WOOLMINGTON V DPP (1935) AC 462 and UMANI V STATE, (1988)1 NWLR (pt70) page 274. On the offence of forgery, learned Counsel for the 2nd Defendant at paragraphs 4.05- 4.13 of his final written address to the effect 15