contract induced by the false pretence, commits an offence under this Act. 2. A person who by false pretence, and with the intent to defraud, induces any other person, in Nigeria or in any other country, to confer a benefit on him or on any other person by doing or permitting a thing to be done on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for commits an offence under this Act. 3. A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) of this section is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not more than 20 years and not less than seven years without the option of a fine. By s. 20 thereof, false pretence is defined as “a representation, whether deliberate or reckless, made by word, in writing or conduct, of a matter of fact or law, either past or present, which representation is false in fact or law, and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true”. In order to succeed in a charge of obtaining by false pretences, the Prosecution must establish by credible evidence that: (i) there was pretence made by the accused; (ii) the accused person obtained property as a result of the false pretence; and (iii) the accused person did same with intent to defraud. See ONWUDIWE v. F.R.N. [2006] 10 NWLR (PT. 988) 382 at 431 – 432 G-H; ALAKE v. STATE [1991] 7 NWLR (PT. 205) 567 and EDE v. F.R.N (supra) 512 – 513 G-C. This case is fraught with several loose ends which the Prosecution has not made the slightest of efforts to tie. The evidence adduced by the PW4 is that in furtherance of the understanding between him and the accused person to sell the 5-hectare piece of land for N2.5m and the 1hectare plot for N300,000, the accused was given a total sum of N2.8m, 18 | P a g e