Defendant on Friday the 18th of February,2022 with the expectation, that they would then resume duty on Monday, the 21't of February ,2022. From PW1's evidence, it is quite obvious that Vitalis Osunbor did not report for duty on the 21't of February,2022 at 7.30am, the expected resumption time, and so, he had to make a report to the Head of the Branch of the Bank who then went to the Bank's vault, brought the spare keys to the ATM vault to make them gain access to the ATM machines. From the evidence, and according to PW1, upon ascertainment of the quantity or amount of cash available, it was noted that over the sum of Eleven Million Naira was missing. lt is noteworthy to point out the fact that there was no document produced in this Court to show how much cash was loaded into the said ATM machine on particular dates, how much was dispensed, and how much was remaining. PW1 also informed this Court that after the Bank's internal investigation, the sum of Eleven lVillion, Four Hundred Thousand Naira was fund missing. The Court takes cognizance of the fact again that the Report of such internal investigation was not placed before this Court. The Court was not told who or which powerless of staff or external Auditors who carried out the Report. The date or dates on which the said internal investigations were carried out. This Court was not informed whether the Defendant was a part of such internal investigation or audit by the Bank staff. PW1 further stated that one Joy handed over to the Defendant, while he, PW1, handed over his duties to Vitalis Osunbor. This Court also notes that Joy, the Manager of the Bank, the Security staff, Frank and Faru did not testify before this Court. They are vital witnesses, and, their statements were neither taken by the police nor produced before this Court. This Court therefore is of the view that there is withholding of evidence by the prosecution, and, also, that if such evidence be produced, it would be unfavourable to the prosecution. This Court refers to section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended. PW2 the IPO lamented about this fact while testifying before this Court about the unco-operative attitude of the Bank's officials towards a proper investigation of this case. ln this modern age of technology and from the evidence in Court the complainant Bank has CCTV. No CCTV footage was tendered before this Court. The CCTV footage would have shown and pointed investably at the person who stole the said sum of money. The security officers on duty on that particular weekend neither made statements nor testified in Court. The said security officers saw who and who entered the branch of the said Bank on that day, and, who and who left, and, with what. There was evidence t2