Thus, on the offences pursuant to section 1(3), 1(1) (a) of the Act, learned Counsel posed a question as follows “if there has very been an intention by the 1st Defendant to carry out mens rea or actually carried out the act? He then submitted that for the offence of obtaining money by false pretence, he referred me and relied on the elements or ingredients of the offence as enunciated in the case of AGUBA V FRN, (2014) LPELR 23211 (CA). He also cited the cases of ONWUDIWE V FRN, (2006) ALL FWLR (pt 319) page 774 at 812 – 813, and ODIAWA V FRN (2008) ALL FWLR (pt439) page 436. Learned Counsel submitted that the evidence of PWS1,4 and 3 clearly exonerated the 1st Defendant. According to the learned Counsel PW1 testified that the contract of the subject matter was not between him and the 1st Defendant and that the 1st Defendant voluntarily refunded to PW1 the sum of N5,000,000.00 but that PW1 refused to collect the money. He stated that PW4, the investigating officer confirmed the testimony of PW1. On the offence of forgery, learned Counsel referred me to sections 363 and 364 of the Penal Code. He then submitted that the foundation of the case of forgery against the 1st Defendant is anchored solely on the opinion of PW2, a staff of Abuja Municipal Area Council to the effect that the land is not within approved layout in the Zonal Planning and not genuine. He then stated that at no time did PW2 in his testimony that he referred to paper itself as forged. On the ingredients of the offence of forgery learned Counsel referred me to the case of AITUMA V STATE, (2006) LPELR 7647 (CA). He submitted that the document alleged to be forged was not subjected to any analysis or any form of scrutiny and that it must be proved that it was the Accused person that forged the document. He relied on the case of IDOWU V THE STATE 7