out of which sum the accused paid agency fee of N230,000 to PW4. Also, the testimony of the PW1 is that he did not meet with the accused person in the course of his dealings with Mrs. Elizabeth Agboga and that he did not pay any money to the accused person. Yet the accused is being charged with having obtained N6.2m from Mr. Daniel under false pretences and with intention to defraud. Judging by the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, it does not seems to me that a criminal charge of obtaining N6.2m or any other sum by false pretences and with intent to defraud has been established against the accused person. There is clear evidence before me that the accused person gave the land documents of the two plots to PW4 who in turn gave the documents to PW2 who eventually sold them to the complainant (PW1), after he had taken copies of the documents for over three months. The Prosecution witnesses, notably PW2 and PW4 who played an active role in the transaction vouched for the authenticity of the land documents. We shall grapple with the legal effect of the insistence of both PW1 and PW2 that the land documents were not fake or forged in our consideration of Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5. But for present purposes, it is noteworthy that the PW2 was able to effect change of ownership from the original names on the land documents to Jodeb & Ted Nig Ltd, a company owned by the PW1 and everything seemed to have gone well until an encroachment occurred sometime in 2012. Even though the transaction subsequently went awry, I find no shred of evidence from which any inference of false pretence or intention to defraud on the part of the accused person can be drawn. It is forcefully contended on behalf of the prosecution that even without the evidence adduced of prosecution witnesses, the extra-judicial statements in Exhibits P6A and P6B are confessional in nature and sufficient without more to ground the conviction. 19 | P a g e There is no doubt