There was no re-examination, and, that was the case of the Defence. ln the written Address, the Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted two issue for determination, viz: (1)Whether the Prosecution has been able to prove the counts of stealing and conversion against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt to warrant a conviction in this charge, and, if not (2) Whether the defendant is entitled to an acquittal in the circumstances. On issue one, this Court was referred to the case of Ademu V. The state (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 826) 517 on the meaning of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Also, the case of Okashetu V. The State (2016)All FWLR (Pt.861) 1262 at 1287 para F-H, was cited to show that the prosecution must prove the ingredients of the offence as charged. The case of Okoroji V. The state (2001) FWLR (Pt.77) 871 was cited on what the prosecution must establish in relation to an offence of stealing. lt was further submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution with reference to the charge are at variance with one another, with particular regards to ownership of the goods stolen, and exhibits 41 -A27. The case of Oyesonmi J. Akinlemibola V. C. O. P (1976) 1 NLR 349was cited and relied upon in support. Furthermore, it was buttressed that PW1 was unable to list the actual items allegedly stolen as contained in Count I of the charge, as well as the fact that the prosecution failed to tender PW1's statement to the Police. On the recharge cards, it was stressed that PW1 did not give a breakdown as to how monies from MTN, Airtel, GLO and 9 lVlobile recharge cards were found missing. Furthermore that Bank Statements, stock book or Account books or printout of recharge card sales were not tendered in court. So, according to the Learned Counsel to the Defendant, this Court should not speculate. The case of Archibong V. lta (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 97) 930 was cited in this regard. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel to the Defendant, it is submitted that the failure of the prosecution to tender the aforementioned documents amounts to withholding evidence within the contemplation of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended. The case of CBN V. Archibong (2001) FWLR (Pt. 58) 1032 was cited in this regard. Then on Exhibit B, the Reconciliation Account Book. it was submitted that the Defendant in her testimony as DW1 stated that she was compelled by PW2, 1.2