was purchased by the respondent on behalf of PW1 on the understanding that it will be kept and sold in future when the market price of the ginger appreciated so that PW1 can get some profit therefrom. But available evidence before the trial court has shown that the respondent in violation of the expressed contract he made concerning the trust, dispose up the ginger as well as used part of the money to by Sobo without any substandard authorization. I therefore agreed with the appellant’s counsel that the 3rd element has also been proved by the appellant at the trial court. As to the 4th and last element that the respondent acted dishonestly section 2 of the Sokoto state Penal Code Law 2019, provided that on person is said to do a thing dishonestly who does that thing which caused wrongful gain to himself, to another person, or caused wrongful loss to any other person. It is also trite law that a man intends the natural consequences of his act. The respondent having known that he was selling the ginger at a lower price than it was bought per bag and without any substantiated authority to do so, has reason to know that he by that act, had succeeded in causing wrongful loss to PW1. I therefore agree with the appellant’s counsel that the 4th element was in fact proved by the prosecution at the lower court. I am also in complete agreement with the appellant’s counsel that the prosecution has proved all elements of the offence of criminal breach of trust against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt as required by law and found the respondent guilty as Page 23 of 25