conspired with the two Defendants to obtain money by false pretences and also forged documents. He then referred me to the evidence of PW2 wherein exhibits 1, 2 and 5 were tendered and admitted in evidence. According to the prosecution that PW2 testified that exhibits 1 and 2 are not genuine as they do not emanate from relevant issuing authority. The prosecution contended also that PW3 testified that himself, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants want to meet the 1st Defendant at Intercontinental Bank where the 2nd Defendant gave the money to the 1st Defendant. The learned prosecution then submitted that a prima facie case is not the same thing as proof beyond reasonable doubt. He stated that at the stage of where a no case submission is made on behalf of an accused, the issue is not whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt but whether a prima- facie case has been made out by the prosecution against the accused so as to make it necessary for the Court to call on the accused to open his defence to the charge. He stated further that at this stage of the proceedings the trial Court is not to evaluate or weigh the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses does not arise. The prosecution contended further that when a submission of no prima facie case is made on behalf of an accused person, the trial court is not thereby called upon at that stage to express any opinion on the evidence before it but the Court is only called upon to take note and rule accordingly. In conclusion the learned prosecution stated that by the testimonies of PWS1,2,3 and 4 and exhibits 1-5, there is a prima facies established by the prosecution against the 1st Defendant that requires him to enter his defence. Now to resolve the no case submission made by the learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant the following issue is distilled for determination:9