8 I I I 741274, at 250-251. He cited section 390 (81 (b) of the c.c.L. 'and submitted that the prosecution must show the existence ol the property and that it was entrusted to the Defendant. He relied on the evidence of PWL and stressed that the pw1 said under cross examination that the Defendant was never given the sum of #2,G63,600 i at any time and that the sums were collected by three named persons whowereneVercalledtogiveevidenceinthiscase. to He contended that there is no evidence of how much was given , the Defendant, if any money at all was given to the Defendant. He submitted that the three named persons are material witnesses whose absence fatal to the case of the prosecution. He retied on Okoroii Vs State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 77) 87!,at 888. He argued that the absence of the three persons createtJ doubt as to whether any money was handed to the Defendant which cioubt must be resolved in favour of the Defendant. He cited Chianugo Vs State (supra) at 253. He contended that Exhibit "A' relates to a civil transaction outside the realm of stealing or conversion. He. pointed out that the rnoney allegedly stolen includes the one contributed by the Defendant and argued that the Defendant cannot be accused of stealing the part contributed by him which is unknown. es.','i.{',.5\ q, T ,\r*r !i C"P1 Egrfi\-r er<*{ u* 5l*|s-,>- i,