Further, the evidence of DW15, Mr. Victor Dilang that he lodged the Cheque into the AllStates Trust Bank’s Account is worthy of consideration, as it stood unchallenged and the Prosecution’s failure to call him was fatal. He discussed the question of Issue Estoppel, Witnesses and Consistency of Evidence led under this Offence. According to Learned Silk, the Prosecution acted on the basis of lies, rumours and gossips citing as an example the testimony in chief and under Cross-Examination of PW8, a Police Officer seconded to the EFCC. This Witness had stated that a visit was made to the Plateau State Ministry of Lands and Survey to confirm Properties said to be owned by the Defendant but it was discovered that several of the Properties, one of which was Crest Hotel located at Old Airport Road, Jos, did not belong to the Defendant. This proved malice on the part of the Prosecution. Malice was also evident when Prosecution alleged that the Cheque was paid into the Account of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures. Learned Silk in his conclusive paragraphs, submitted generally on the fact that no Court has the right to draw conclusions of fact outside the available evidence, referring to the case of THE STATE VS AIBANGBEE (2008) 8 NWLR PART 1037 PAGE 517 PER OPUTA JSC AND ESO JSC. He noted that there were fundamental contradictions and inconsistencies which ought to be resolved in favour of the Defendant citing the cases of PRINCEWILL VS THE STATE (1994) 6 NWLR PART 353 PAGE 703 AT PAGE 714 PARAS D-E PER IGUH JSC; BASSEY VS THE STATE (2012) 12 NWLR PART 1314 PAGE 209 AT PAGE 239 PER FABIYI JSC; NMA DOGO VS THE STATE (2001) 1 SC PART II PAGE 30 AT PAGE 39 PER EJIWUNMI JSC; IKEMSON VS THE STATE (1989) NWLR PART 110 PAGE 15 AT PARA A; AND IBEH VS THE STATE (1997) 1 NWLR PART 484 PAGE 38 PARAS D-E, amongst others. In conclusion, he urged the Court to discharge and acquit the Defendant as the Prosecution failed to prove the Offences beyond reasonable doubt. Now, the Court finds that Criminal Misappropriation is a Lesser Pedigree Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust and Several Ingredients distinguishes it from Criminal Breach of Trust. Criminal Misappropriation, does NOT Particularize Certain Categories of Person, rather, it is all encompassing to include ALL Persons, regardless of Status or Office held or occupied. Further, Criminal Misappropriation does not require any form of, Entrustment created or Dominion controlled, over a Property either by way of Contract, Law or Directive or that Violation would probably ensue. Finally, ONLY Duplex Modes suffice for this Offence of Criminal Misappropriation, which are Misappropriation and Conversion. Section 308 of the Penal Code, defines Criminal Misappropriation in this manner, “Whoever Dishonestly Misappropriates or Converts to his Own Use any Moveable Property, commits Criminal Misappropriation.” To prove this Offence of Criminal Misappropriation the following Ingredients are Pertinent, namely: 1) The Property must have an Owner; 2) The Defendant had Reasonable Belief that the Owner could be found by evidence of his Previous Acquaintance with the Ownership of the Property, the Place where the Property is found, or the Nature of the Marks upon it; 3) The Property in Question is a Moveable Property; 4) The Defendant is already in Possession of the Property and is either Lawfully in Possession or in his Possession; 193