of Sokoto state 2019. Triable by this court. In arguing this appeal, the learned silk submitted that the trial court in its efforts to ascertain whether or not the prosecution has proffered the required evidence to prove the two {2} offences framed against the respondent, did not make any distinction between the ingredients required for the proof of the offences of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation and referred to page 2 and 3 of the judgment of the trial court in which the trial court lumped the ingredients together as being identical in nature. He argued that on the authority of the Supreme Court case of Edun V. State {2019} 13 NWLR pt 1689 p 326 at 356 Paragraph A, entrustment is not an element of the offence of criminal misappropriation, and so the trial court was wrong in law when at page 2 of its judgment held entrustment of a movable property as number 1 element of the offence as entrustment is only applicable to the offence of criminal breach of trust. It was his further submission that going by the evidence on the record as led by the prosecution, the prosecution has proved all the elements of the offences of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. He submitted that as to the 1st ingredient of the offence of criminal breach of trust that the defendant was entrusted with movable property, he argued that the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and even the respondent as DW1, all established that N8,000,000:00 was Page 8 of 25