the owner of the Property. The People of Taraba State, who voted the Defendant in as their Governor and Conferredover to him the authority, must have had confidence in him. This established a fiduciary relationship between the People of Taraba State and the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant did hold the Funds i.e. the Property for and on behalf of Taraba State Government. See the cases of OGUONZE VS THE STATE (1998) 4 SC PAGE 110 AT PAGE 155, 156 PARAS 40-5; EDOHO VS THE STATE (2004) 5 NWLR PART 865 PAGE 17 AT PAGE 51 PARAS A-C; NNOLIM VS THE STATE (1993) 3 NWLR PART 283 PAGE 569 AT PAGE 581 PARA B. From these Principles also, the Court finds that the Defendant at the material time was the Governor of Taraba State and is found to have been entrusted with dominion over the Funds of the Taraba State Government. Therefore, this finding that the Defendant was entrusted and had dominion over Taraba State Government Funds, holds true throughout theCounts of the Charge and in this instant, Counts1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. The Next Element to be satisfied is the Quadruplet Modes or the Four Options upon which the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is established. Learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel across the divide, submitted corporately on these Modes and failed to address them separately. Learned Counsel to the Defence, listed out the Essential Elements in Section 311 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 530, LFN 1990and submitted that none of the evidence adduced had establishedMisappropriation and Conversion to the Defendant’s Use in Counts 1, 2 and 6. Learned Counsel submitted that where a Defendant is charged with Conversion/Misappropriation of a Specific Amount, the Prosecution has the Burden to prove the specific amount. Where there is no such direct and specific evidence, the Court is bound to discharge the Defendant and he 33