of particularly using the forged document as a document emanating from the Federal Housing Authority. I have gone through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case, and I do not find any iota of evidence to establish that the defendant used the forged document as a document of the Federal Housing Authority. The defendant has been found guilty of forging the document but to secure a conviction under Count 3 of the charge, the particulars provided in the offence must be proved. That the defendant presented the forged document as one emanating from the Federal Housing Authority is not proved and I so hold. The offence alleged against the defendant in Count 3 of the charge is not proved. She is therefore discharged and acquitted on Count 3 of the charge. In conclusion, I find you, Mary Okoh guilty of the offence of forgery contrary to Section 362(a) of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code. You are accordingly convicted of the said offence accordance with Count 2 of the charge. I find you, Mary Okoh not guilty on Counts 1 and 3 of the charge proffered against you. You are discharged and acquitted on Counts 1 and 3 of the charge. The prosecuting counsel in his final written address submitted as follows: “5.0 RESTITUTION Prosecution has shown in the course of trial that the defendant defrauded N30million (Thirty Amasi Million Okon Naira) to the tune of which the defendant withdrew through cheques. In the probable event that the Court finds that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof and convicts the defendant, Section 11 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud 28 Related offences Act, 2006