aware of the N10,000 collected by PW1. burden of proof must be discharged That the beyond reasonable doubt. That the only evidence that looks like money is Exhibit ‘A’ being a brown envelop. That 2nd Defendant has not cheated PW1 to the tune of N150,000 as alleged in Count 3 or duped him in any way to make him liable for the offence alleged in Count 3 and 4. That the ingredient of personation by cheating has not been proved. The Defendants’ Counsel further filed and moved an application dated 7/05/18 seeking the Court for an Order to strike out the Charge No. CR/277/15 for being incompetent and because the Court lacks jurisdiction. I thought Learned counsel should have raised the issues contained thereon in his Final Written Address. Nonetheless, I shall consider same. He further prays the Court to strike out the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and Exhibits A, B, C and D. The grounds are that the Charge is incompetent. That it did not satisfy the provisions of Section 379 and 380 of the ACJA 2015. 18