Learned Silk, Rotimi Jacobs SAN, then set out the Section of the Law to be Section 315 of the Penal Code, as well as set out in detail, the ingredients necessary to sustain the Offences of Criminal Breach of Trust and relied on the following cases: ONUOHA VS THE STATE (1988) 3 NWLR PART 83 PAGE 460 AT PAGE 471; AKWULE VS THE QUEEN (1963) NSCC PAGE 157; FRN VS MARTINS (2012) 14 NWLR PART 1320 PAGE 287 AT PAGE 318; UZOAGBE VS COP (2014) 8 NWLR PART 1401 PAGE 441 AT PAGE 456 AND 463; AND MATA VS THE STATE (2013) 3 NWLR PART 1342 PAGE 607 AT PAGE 619 AND 620. Learned Silk comprehensively analyzed the evidence proffered by all the Witnesses from the Prosecution and Defence, and by way of response to the question of the omission of the word “dishonestly” in the Counts for Criminal Breach of Trust, Learned Silk contended that the arguments as put forward by the Defence were spurious and unsupported by either Section 315 of the Penal Code or the Case Law in AKWULE VS QUEEN (SUPRA) and such arguments cannot vitiate the Defendant’s Trial. According to him, Craig JSC, in the case of ONUOHA VS THE STATE (SUPRA) AT PAGE 470 had authoritatively set out the ingredients for this Offence for which the Defence cannot, by way of submission, set out a new requirement. According to Learned Silk, ONUOHA’S Case, used the technical words, “committed a Criminal Breach of Trust”, and he argued that once this phrase is contained in a Count, it is said to have embedded or taken into consideration the fact that the act was dishonest, as well as taken into account, other definitions contained in Section 311 of the Code. Further, the case of YAKUBU IBRAHIM VS COP (SUPRA), as cited by the Defence would not avail him because the Defendant in the above cited case, was charged under Sections 311 and 312 of the Code, while in this instance, the Defendant is charged under Section 315. To demonstrate his point on what needed to be proved and on how to Draft a Charge for this Class of Offence, he referred to AKWULE’s Case and S.S. Richardson’s Note on Penal Code Fourth Edition at Page 243 and stated that even, the Supreme Court had relied and adopted the ingredients as set forth in Richardson in the case of ONOGWU VS THE STATE (1995) 6 NWLR PART 401 PAGE 276 AT PAGE 291. The Court of Appeal also adopted the above in the case of AJIBOYE VS FRN (2014) LPELR CA/IL/C.51/2014, which was a case of Theft under Section 289 of the Code, where the expression “committed theft” in the Charge was used, without stating out its ingredients as contained in Section 286 of the Code and where the Prosecution, had also framed the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust in the same manner as couched in this present case. In addition, Nigerian Cases had faithfully been following Indian Precedence and Sections 405 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code is synonymous with Sections 311 and 315 of the Penal Code. The Leading Indian Authors, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, in their Book, The Indian Penal Code, 31st Edition, 2006, had couched the Charge for this form of Offence in a similar manner. Further, commenting on Section 409, these Authors had stated that dishonesty may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Learned Silk therefore submitted that the Charge was framed in compliance with the requirements of the Law, and the Prosecution is expected to adhere strictly to the language used in Section 315 of the Penal Code and to prove dishonesty, which element is embedded in the phrase, “committed Criminal Breach of Trust”. According to him, the argument of the Defence was misconceived and cannot be right. Apart from that, the Defendant had not stated that he was misled as to the nature of the Charge he was facing, for he had pleaded Not Guilty to both the Original Charge and the Amended Charge. By 62