The Prosecution or Defence must create a Reasonable Doubt in the mind of the Trial Judge. All it means, is that, the Prosecution must adduce such evidence, which if believed and if left uncontradicted and unexplained, could be accepted by the Trial Court as Proof. In the light of the above, the Prosecution is expected to discharge the Requisite Burden of Proof, Direct or Circumstantial, sufficient enough to ground the Offences in the Charge. On the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, Learned Counsel representing the Defence referred to Section 311 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 530, LFN 1990 as the Governing Section and set out the Essential Elements required to establish the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust. He challenged the Section under which the Defendant was charged, stating that he should have been charged under Section 311 as opposed to Section 315 and referred the Court to the Supreme Court’s Decisions in the Cases of UZOAGBA VS COP (2014) 5 NWLR (PT.1401) @ 456 PARAS F-H 463 PARAS E-G; AND MAFA VS STATE (2013) 3 NWLR (PT. 1342) 607 @ 619 PARAS A-C. In response, Learned Senior Counsel representing the Prosecution contended that Section 311 of the Penal Code Act as cited by Learned Counsel to the Defence was wrong because the Defendant, was a Public Servant, and he set out the Essential Ingredients as required under Section 315 of the Penal Code Act. He distinguished UZOAGBA’s Case cited by the Defence as inapplicable because the Defendant in that Case was charged under Section 312 of the Penal Code for Criminal Breach of Trust, and not Section 315 as in the instant Case. Further, he stated that the Defendant completely ignored the Offence prescribed under Section 315, and urged the Court to ignore Learned Counsel’s Submission on this point. Learned Counsel representing the Defence in his Specific Reply on this Point of Law, argued that the Prosecution did not appreciate the Defendant’s Argument on this issue, and was not mindful of the relevant Provision of the 18