(1998)LPER 1427(SC) and ALAKE V THE STATE (1992)9 NWLR (pt26) page 260. The learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant stated further that under cross examination PW4, the investigating officer testified that no forged document nor any incriminating evidence was found with the 1st Defendant. He then contended that by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this case none of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the 1st Defendant has been proved by the prosecution. In conclusion learned Counsel urged me to discharge and acquit the 1st Defendant. On the otherhand, the learned prosecuting Counsel stated that at this stage of the no case submission, the issue is whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the Defendant for which he has to stand trial or enter his defence at the trial. The learned prosecution stated that a no case submission means that there is no evidence on which, even if the Court believes it, it could not convict. He relied on the case of EKEWUNUGO V FRN, (2008) 15 NWLR (pt1111) page 630 and UBANATU V C.O.P (2000) 2 NWLR (pt643) page 143. Than at paragraph 2.5.1 of the written reply, the learned prosecuting Counsel stated the essential ingredients of both offences of obtaining money by false pretence under section 1(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and making of false document or forgery under sections 362 and 363 of the Penal Code, LFN (applicable in Abuja). The learned prosecution at paragraphs 2.6- 2.8 of his written reply to the 1st Defendant’s no case submission submitted to the effect that by the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence before the Court, evidence exist to establish the ingredients of the offences upon which the 1st Defendant was charged. He submitted further that the totality of the evidence of the prosecution shows that the 1st Defendant 8