connote corruption. We take the view that the Charge was good. In the language of the Law, the word “bribe” always means an unlawful gift or offer as a means of Corruption, the essence of which is that the gift or offer should operate on the mind of the Person to whom it is offered to make him do a certain act.” Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, now Section 197 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, in specific reference to the Charge of Criminal Breach of Trust or Criminal Misappropriation of Money and it stated thus: “When the Accused is charged with Criminal Breach of Trust or Criminal Misappropriation of Money, it shall be sufficient to specify the Gross Sum in respect of which the Offence is alleged to have been committed AND the dates between which the Offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the Charge so framed, shall be deemed to be a Charge of a Single Offence.” In the case of ONUOHA VS THE STATE (1988) 3 NWLR PT 83, 460 AT 471, CRAIG JSC stated the ingredients of the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, while referring to the case of AKWULE VS THE QUEEN (1963) NNLR AT PAGE 105, and Dishonestly was not among the ingredients listed out as an essential element. In his own list, the fact that the Defendant committed a Breach of Trust in respect of the Money either by Misappropriation, Conversion, Use or Disposal, and that he did so dishonestly, was sufficient. In the case of JOHN TIMOTHY VS THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2012) LPELR-9346 (SC), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal on their adoption of Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act and held thatno error in stating the Offence or the Particulars required to be stated in the Charge and no omission to state the Offence or those Particulars shall be regarded AT ANY STAGE of the case as MATERIAL unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission." The hearing of the accusation of an Offence commences with the Proceedings leading to reading of the Charge to the Defendant and his pleading to it. The Proceedings against the Defendant commences with the filing of information. This is why any Objection to a formal defect in the Charge should be taken before the Plea; otherwise the Objection is taken as having been waived and lately raised. See ADIO VS THE STATE (1986) 3 NWLR PART 13 PAGE 714 (SC) and OHWOVORIOLE VS FRN (2001) 13 NWLR PART 730 PAGE 428 AT PAGE 449 (CA). Any Objection to a Charge for any formal defect on the face thereof must be taken immediately after the Charge has been read over to the Defendant and not later. See OBAKPOLOR VS THE STATE (1991) 1 NWLR PART 165 PAGE 113 AT PAGE 124 (SC). In the case of GUDUF VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1960) NRNLR PAGE 69 it was held that, “Where a Charge was defective, Objection was not taken at Trial because Counsel wished to reserve the Point for an Appeal, it was not Counsel’s right at Trial nor his duty towards his Client to say nothing and to allow the case to run on and end, perhaps, on his Client’s Conviction, in the hope of succeeding on the Point on Appeal. Reference is also made to the case of INAJO VS THE STATE, FCA/K/42/79 DELIVERED ON THE 12TH JUNE 1980 PER KAZEEM, JCA, His Lordship held that where the Appellants were represented by Counsel, who did not raise any Objection at the Trial or complain that the Appellants were misled, the Charge was in order and was neither defective nor erroneous, as the Appellants were arraigned at the Trial, the Charge was read and explained to them and each Appellant replied that he understood the Charge and pleaded Not Guilty. In such circumstances, the failure to state the manner in which the Appellant was alleged to have used the cutlass to cause the death of the deceased did not show that they were misled as to make applicable the Provision of Section 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 38