“entrustment” and by the decision of the Supreme Court according to him, the elements of the offences of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation are the same except that the proof of “trust” is required for criminal breach of trust and that the trial court did not in any way identified “trust” as one of the elements of the offence criminal misappropriation and that even if it has done so, same has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice that can affect the validity of decision of the lower court and urge the court to so hold. As to the discharge and acquittal order in the decision of the lower court, respondent counsel submitted that by the combine effects of sections 300 and 297 of the Sokoto state penal code law 2019 which defined the offences of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation respectively, the prosecution has not proved the elements of the 2 offences against the respondent as required by law. - Nwoti VS. Mbonu {1991} 7NWLR pt 206 p 737 at 745 - Regbesola V. Oyinlola {2011} 9 NWLR pt 1253 p 458 As to the offence of criminal breach of trust, the respondent’s counsel at paragraph 4.12:2 of their adopted written address, conceded to the fact that there is no doubt that the complainant has given N8,000,000 to the respondent to purchase ginger for her. He further submitted that there is also no doubt that 345 bags of ginger and 10 bags of Zobo were purchased by the respondent as proved by exhibit A and A1 and the evidence of DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW4. Page 11 of 25