In NWAMARA’S ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE PENAL CODE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE NORTHERN STATES OF NIGERIA AND ABUJA AT PAGE 608, the Author defined the Offence of Criminal of Breach of Trust as an Aggravated Offence of Criminal Misappropriation, where the Person comes into possession by Express Entrustment or by some Process, placing the Defendant in a Position of Trust and there is Dishonest Use or Disposal of the Property in Violation of the Trust. See also 1976 MADRAS SERIES LAW JOURNAL (CRIMINAL) PAGE 20 AT PAGE 28(DB); His Lordship PETER-ODILI, J.C.A. (AS SHE THEN WAS) AT PAGES 17, 18, PARAS E-B in the case of HON. YAKUBU IBRAHIM & ORS VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2010) LPELR-8984 (CA); SABO VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1973) NNLR PAGE 207. In AIYEJENA VS THE STATE (1969) NNLR PAGE 73, it was held that before there can be a conviction on a Charge of Breach of Trust, there must be evidence of Entrustment and of Dishonest Misappropriation of what was entrusted, and reference was made in that Case, to the Case of BATSARI VS KANO NATIVE AUTHORITY (1966) NRNLR PAGE 151 AT PAGES 152, 153. Further, it is clear that Shortage in the Property is not itself Misappropriation, as there must be Direct or Circumstantial Evidence to show that the Misappropriation caused the Shortage. In the case of BELLO MUHAMMED TAMBUWAL VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2018) LPELR-43971 (CA), the Dictum of PETER ODILI JCA (AS SHE THEN WAS) in YAKUBU IBRAHIM& ORS VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2010) LPELR-8984 (CA), was followed. His LordshipCRAIG JSC, in the Case of THEOPHILUS ONUOHA VS THE STATE SC.8/1988 AT PAGES 10, 11 AT PARAS F-C; (1988) 3 NWLR PART 83 AT PAGE 460 (SC), held inter alia, whilst referring to the Case of AKWULE VS THE QUEEN (1963) NNLR P.105 that, what the Prosecution was expected to prove was: (1) That the Defendant was a Public Servant; (2) That in such Capacity he had been entrusted with the Money in question; (3) That he had committed a Breach of Trust in respect of the Money, i.e., either (a) He had Misappropriated it; or (b) Converted it to his Own Use; or (c) In any way whatsoever Disposed of it Fraudulently and in a Manner Contrary to the Directive(s) given to him. Now, from the above Ingredients of the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust as set out in ONUOHA’S CASE (SUPRA), this Court will examine the Totality of the Evidence, both Oral and Documentary, adduced during the Trial, to determine whether the Prosecution has successfully established, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, the Counts of Offences of Criminal Breach of Trust. The Prosecution must prove the following throughout the Fourteen (14) Count Charges: That the Defendant is a Public Servant; That in his Capacity as Public Servant, he was Entrusted with the Monies or with Dominion over the Monies; That he committed Criminal Breach of Trust in respect of the Monies by3. i. Misappropriating; or ii. Converting to their own use; iii. Using; or iv. Disposing of the Monies or intentionally or willfully allowing any other Person(s) to do so, 1. 2. 98