Counsel defines also Robbery and Armed Robbe ry relying on Sectio ns 2(a) and C 11 of the Robbery and Firearm s (special provisions) Act 2004, SOWEM IMO v STATE l2012) 2 NWLR part 1284 page 400 etc . Counsel subm its that at th e close of the ·prosecution ' s case , no case was made out against the 2 nd defendant and prays the court to so hold in the light of Section 193 of the ACJL /I 2010 . Counsel in support also cites and quot es the evidence of the three prosecution_witnesses and EMEDO v STATE (supra) .· Counsel also submits that the failure of the police to conduct an identification parade also cast doubts on their case , relying on the case of ll( EMSON v THE STATE (1989}" 3 NWLR part 110 page 145 etc . Th is line of addres s clea rly has no place in a No case submission for counsel in her wisdom now ·extends her argument to include .proof of case beyond reasonabl,!= doubts by also going into hearsay evidence etc . These should come in a final address as counsel wants this court to look into evaluation of evidence without th e whole evidence being before the court . In conclusion counsel relies on of AJAYI v STATE (2011) 45 WRN page 100 ratio 3, Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, Section 193 of the ACJ L . . ~ 2010 and urges the court to uphold the No case submission and to discharge and acquit the 2 nd defendant . In the reply of the learned prosecution counsel filed ori 20/7/2018, the matter is also introduced and brief facts of the case given. Counsel raises a sole issue for determination thus - " whether the app'lication for a no-case submission by the 1st defendant has any merit ." In his argument, he submits that from the totality of evidence led by the State, that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the defendants as the prosecution can make out their case by eith er of three ways as held in the case of OBONGHAMBANG v THE STATE (2010) 7 NWLR part 1194 page 431 etc . he conce~es that though the defendants wer~ charged wi_th armed robbery, the Page 4