See ALAKE V THE STATE (1991) 7 NWLR (pt 205) Page 567, FRN V AMAH (2016) ALL FWLR (Pt818) page 889 at 909 and SEGUN ADELODUN V FRN (2017) LPELR 42356 (CA). In the instant case by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no evidence at all linking the 4th and 5th defendants in the commission of the offence of intent to defraud or obtain money by false pretence contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Act. By the evidence of PW1 under cross examination by the Counsel for the 4th and 5th Defendants, he testified thus:“I know the 4th and 5th Accused persons. The 4th Accused works with us and the 5th Accused was given to me by the 1st Accused to write a cheque of N20,000,000.00 in the name of the 5th Accused.” Also by the testimony of PW3, based on the draft cheques issued in the name of the 5th Defendant, they wrote a letter of investigation activities to Corporate Affairs Commission and they received a response which indicated that the 4th Defendant is the Managing Director of the 5th Defendant company. According to PW3, they also wrote to UBA plc where the 5th Defendant maintain and operate an account. The response of UBA Plc and the statement of account of 5th the Defendant was analysed as to the disbursement of the sum of N20,000,000.00 to only the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants as beneficiaries. Under cross examination by the 4th and 5th Defendants Counsel, PW3 testified as follows:“It is correct based on the draft cheque, I wrote to Corporate Affairs Commission and found that the 4th Defendant is the Managing Director. I equally found out that the N20,000,000.00 was paid in the account of the 5th Defendant.” “The 4th and 5th Defendants did not partake in the transaction. In the course of my investigation I did not find where the 4th and 5th Defendants benefitted from the transaction.” Now by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, virtually all the ingredients of the offence in which the 4th and 5th Defendants were charged have not been proved against the 4th 38