2. Whether the Prosecution has established Beyond Reasonable Doubt the Offences of Criminal Misappropriation punishable under Section 309 of the Penal Code Act, which was laid out in Counts3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 3. Whether the Offence of taking Gratification by Public Servants, charged under Section 115 of the Penal Code Act, and as laid out in Count 4 was established Beyond Reasonable Doubt. 4. Whether the Offence of Public Servants Obtaining Valuable Thing without Consideration, charged under Section 119 of the Penal Code Act, and as laid out in Count 5 was established Beyond Reasonable Doubt. From the above, it can be seen that the Substantive Offences before the Court are in regard to the Offences of Criminal Breach of Trust, Criminal Misappropriation, Gratification and Obtaining a Valuable Thing without Consideration. The Offences of Criminal Breach of Trust and Criminal Misappropriation, all revolve around Certain Special Sets of Circumstances, which are in regard to: 1. Stationeries and Office Equipment; 2. Grains; 3. Presidential Visit; and 4. Miscellaneous Sums from the Liaison Office. Both Learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel made copious Submissions on the Required Burden of Proof necessary to ground the Offences in the Charge and they are all on Record, therefore there is no need to restate them here. Now, the Burden of Proof on the Prosecution is as imposed under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (As Amended), which states “that if the Commission of a Crime by a Party to any Proceeding is directly in issue in any Proceeding Civil or Criminal, it must be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt.’’ 16