8 ARMY (2008) ALL FWLR (PART 420)603 AT 629 PARAGRAPHS B – D; FRN VS ADEWUNMI (2007) ALL FWLR (PART 368)978 AT 999 PARAGRAPHS A – D. The prosecution Counsel relied on the record of this Court of 28/03/2011 and submitted that neither the accused person nor his Counsel objected to the charge before taking his plea. His contends that, where an accused person or his Counsel fails to object to a defect in a charge, he cannot raise that objection later in the trial or on appeal as pleading to a charge is submission to the jurisdiction of the Court. See OBAKPOLOR VS STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PART 165) 113. He postulates that the instant charge was read to the accused in the Language he understands and explained to him by the Court and when asked to take his plea, he pleaded not guilty to each of the two counts. The accused thus submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court by taking his plea. See SALUADE VS COP (2001) 7 NWLR (PART 712) 432 AT 434 RATIO 2. He urged the Court to hold that the arraignment was done according to law. On whether PW1 is bound to tender the statement of PW2 who testified as a witness in Court. The prosecution Counsel contends that he is not bound, as PW2 came in person to testify in Court. According to the prosecution, PW2 made a statement as a witness and came to Court, testified and was cross examined by the defence. He argued that her statement which was annexed to the charge is the reason why she came to testify, and moreover, if the defence needed the statement to be part of the trial, all they needed to do was to ask prosecution for the original, in the absence of which they were at liberty to tender the photocopy annexed to their charge. On the issue of withholding evidence, as alleged by the defence, the prosecution Counsel submitted that, he is not bound to tender all documents, only those relevant to its case, just as it is not bound to call a host of witnesses. The duty of prosecution is to prove the ingredients of the offence which we have done. The prosecution urged the Court hold that the accused person is in Court for the forgery of the statement of Result and not the endorsed copy and the prosecution has proved that.