Thus, therefore, based on the testimonies of PWS 1, 2, 3, and 4 and exhibits 1, 2, 5, 7 (a), 8 (a) & (b) and 9, I hold the view that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence of obtaining money under false pretence against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt and I so hold. For the offence of forgery punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code LFR (Abuja) 1990, the law is that in a charge of forgery the prosecution must prove that it was the accused person that did the forgery. The evidence of the prosecution must prove specifically that it was the accused person that did the forgery. See AITUMA V THE STATE, (Supra) and MUHAMMAD AL-AMEEN AL-HALEEL V FRN (2015) LPELR 25902 (CA). In the instant case, PW2 testified that exhibits 1 and 2 are not genuine as they did not emanate from their office. PW2 did not state whether exhibits 1 and 2 were forged by the Defendants. The evidence of PWS 1, 3 and including the evidence of PW4, the investigating officer did not state or testify that it was the Defendants that forged exhibits 1 and 2. Thus, in the instant case, it is correct as submitted by the prosecution that exhibits 1 and 2 were forged or not genuine as testified by PWS 1, 2, 3 and 4 but the question is who forged the documents, exhibits 1 and 2? Other essential elements of the offence i.e. that the Defendants know the document or writing to be false and that the Defendants intend that the document to be acted upon to the prejudice of PW1 in the believe that it is genuine, can be established from the evidence of PWS 1, 2, 3, 4 and the statements of the Defendants. However, the most critical ingredients that it was the Defendants that forged the document or writing is completely absent. The law therefore is that the prosecution has the responsibility or onus of proof of all the essential elements of the offence of forgery as contained in counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the charge. In the instant case, prosecution having failed to prove one of the essential ingredients and indeed the most important ingredient, I hold the view that the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of 30