and the Court is not required to look at the evidence and reference was made to the case of UBANATU VS COP (2002) NWLR PART 643. According to Learned Silk, the proof of Dishonest Intention is relevant for the purposes of determining whether the state of mind of the Defendant renders it possible or likely to have entertained Dishonest Intention when he dealt with the monies entrusted to him. Further, it is the mental act of fraudulent misappropriation that distinguishes Embezzlement, amounting to a Civil Wrong or Tort from that of Criminal Breach of Trust and it is only when there is evidence of the mental act of fraudulent misappropriation of any Sum of Money, that it becomes a Penal Offence punishable as Criminal Breach of Trust. On the element of Entrustment, Learned Silk submitted that “to entrust” and “to have dominion” were stated disjunctively in the Penal Code and he drew out their distinctions. He submitted that to entrust means to assign responsibility for doing something to someone and also means to put something into someone’s care or protection. Dominion, on the other hand, meant Sovereignty, Control over the Property and the Power or Right of Governing or Controlling that Property. It also means Sovereign Authority, Rule or Domination and Learned Silk pointed out that the Charge, in question, failed to specify the nature, limit or extent of the Sovereignty. According to Learned Silk, the Charge was also bad for failing to state the Terms of the Entrustment and how they were breached. The Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is committed when a Person who is entrusted in any manner with Property or with dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it, or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it or disposes of it in violation of any direction of Law prescribing the mode in which the Trust is to be discharged, or of any Legal Contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other Person so to do. He recognized the fact that the word “or” was used Six (6) times in the Section. Further, the Charge failed to specify the Person who entrusted the Cheque to the Defendant thereby rendering the Charge, yet again, bad and vague. It connotes that the Defendant held the “Property” for and on behalf of the Person offering it to him. The Person handing over the Property must have confidence in the Person taking the Property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them. According to Learned Silk, the implication of the word Entrustment is that the Person handing over the Property continues to be the owner of the Property. This was not the situation in this case, as the Cheque allegedly entrusted to the Defendant, did not remain the Property of either the Federal Government or of the Ecological Funds Office. Therefore, it was imperative that the identity of the Person entrusting the Property to the Defendant be stated in the Charge. He submitted that the Counts only made reference to the “Place” where the Cheque was collected and it is clear, that neither a Place nor an Office can entrust but only by a Person. From the evidence adduced, it was PW2, Mr. Adewusi, who delivered the Cheque to Victor Dilang. Victor Dilang was the Person entrusted with the Cheque, he was a material Witness but was not called nor his Witness Statement obtained, and failure to do both, were fatal to the case of the Prosecution. Reference was made to the cases of OGUONZE VS THE STATE (1998) 4 SC PAGE 110 AT PAGE 155, 156 PARAS 40-5; EDOHO VS THE STATE (2004) 5 NWLR PART 865 PAGE 17 AT PAGE 51 PARAS A-C; NNOLIM VS THE STATE (1993) 3 NWLR PART 283 PAGE 569 AT PAGE 581 PARA B. 57