By the above Statutory Definitions, and by the Documentary Exhibits and Oral Testimonies, which confirmed the Defendant served as Governor, the Defendant is found by the Court toqualify as a Public Servant/Officer for the purposes of this Trial and for proving the First Elementin the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust. This Finding holds True in Counts1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. The Next Ingredients to be proved are those of Entrustment and Dominion. Learned Counsel to the Defendant made no Specific Submissions on the Issues of Entrustment and Dominion in his Final Written Address. However, the Learned Senior Counsel representing the Prosecution, submitted in his Final Written Address, that the Defendant as a Public Servant, was entrusted with the Property and Funds of the State and all the Payments were made based on his Approval. In that Capacity, the Defendant employed fraudulent means, misappropriated and disposed of the Funds thereby committing the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust. In Reply on Points of Law, Learned Counsel to the Defendant disagreed with the Prosecution on the ground that, none of the Monies, which formed the basis of the Counts were entrusted to the Defendant, stating that he did not dishonestly misappropriate the Funds, as required by Section 315 of the Penal Code Act. Therefore, he argued that the Court is not permitted to speculate or supplement any missing piece of evidence that ought to prove any of the ingredients of the said Offence or any Offence at all. He cited the case of MOHAMMED BATSARI VS KANO NATIVE AUTHORITY (1966) NMLR 151. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Complainant failed to prove Custody of the Funds, which is a Crucial Element of the Offence. It was imperative that the Property must be in the Custody of a Person, in order to ground the Offence of Misappropriation. According to him, theFunds alleged 29