He argued that as to the element that the respondent misappropriated the moveable property to his personal use, he submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial court did not show that the respondent has personally benefited from the money collected from PW1. As to the element that the respondent acted dis honestly respondent’s cancel submitted that in order to avoid repetition of submission decided to adopt their submission in paragraph 5,4,12,24_4,12,31 of their adopted written address and concluded by saying the respondent did not acted dishonestly as the prosecution did not lead evidence to the contrary. He argued that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence led before it in compliance with the laid criteria set out in decided cases before arriving at its decision. - Adebayo v. Ausei {2004} 4 NWLR pt. 862 p 44 - Scoa M. Aregbesolo v. Oyinlola {2011} 9NWLR pt 1253 P 458 The respondent’s cancel finally submitted that since the applicant has failed to convincingly substantiate their appeal with legal argument, he urge the court to resolve the issues in favour of the respondent. Let me start by saying that in our adversarial system of criminal justice, it is trite law that in criminal trial it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant charged with the allegation of committing a crime because Page 13 of 25