Therefore, the fact that the Prosecution did not expressly mentionSection 311 of the Penal Code Act in the Charge Sheet, did not affect the Charges before the Court. Learned Counsel representing the Defendant, has not shown that the Defendant was ignorant of the Nature of the Offences he is charged with and has not shown how the failure of the Prosecution to mention Section 311 in the Charge Sheet was prejudicial to the Defendant. Further, since 2007 when the Charge was instituted and throughout the Trial and Appeal of an Interlocutory Issue, the Defendant was silent as to this Contention, it is rather belated at this Stage to raise this Contention must especially as he has not shown how he was prejudiced by this Sections of the Law he was charged with. Now, there are Two Distinct Parts involved in the Commission of the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust. The First consists of the Creation of an Obligation in relation to the Property over which the Defendant acquires Dominion or Control. The Second is the Misappropriation, Use, Conversion or Disposal or Otherwise Dealing with the Property, Dishonestly and Contrary to the Terms of Obligation Created. The Person handing over the Property must have Confidence in the Person taking the Property, so as to create a Fiduciary Relationship between them or to put him in position of a Trustee. The Person who comes into Possession of the Property receives it legally but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the Terms of the Contract. The definition of “Property” is not restricted to moveable or immoveable alone as the definition of the particular kind of Property envisaged, could be extended to cover the Purpose, i.e., whether that Property can be subject to the ambits/acts contemplated under this Section. Therefore, the Defendant must be in such a position where he could exercise his Control over the Property i.e., Dominion over the Property and 22