of November 2016, he had a change of mind and applied to close his case. With this closure, the Defence requested an adjournment to file a No-Case Submission, which was filed and briefs were exchanged. Arguments on the No-Case Submission were heard on the 18th of January 2017 and a Considered Ruling was delivered on the 14th of February 2017, dismissing the No-Case Submission and the Defendant was ordered to enter into his Defence. It clear from the Proceedings before this Court that the Defendant did not contend the Particulars of any Offence under any Count brought under the Charge was unclear or misleading. However, the errors as to Dates in Counts 24, 26, 28, 31, 33, 35 and 40, and the errors as to the Sums as in the Counts 22, 26, 28, 34, 37, 38, 39 and 41 cannot be cured by the Final Address of the Prosecution. Learned Senior Counsel had attempted to salvage some mistakes by giving evidence not elicited from the Trial. Now, from the Evidence it can be seen there were some disparities as to dates and figures in which the Deposits and Withdrawals took place, as opposed to the dates and figures stated in the Charge. Learned Senior Counsel had submitted in regard to disparities as to date by referring to the cases of R V DOSSI 13 CR APP.R 158; R VS ERONINI (1953) 14WACA 366; DURU VS IGP (1960) LLR PG135; THE STATE VS OGBAMBA (1963) FSC PG 46; AND R V OTUEDO (1929) 9 NLR PG 33, that though the date of the Offence should be alleged in the indictment, it has never been necessary that it should be laid according to truth, unless time is the essence of the Offence. Thus, if there was Evidence on which the Court would come to the conclusion to find the Appellant guilty of the Charge against him, even though it is found that the Offence had not been committed on the actual date specified in the indictment. The error on the date of the Offence is not material to the case so long there is Evidence, and so long as the Dates are relatively accounted for and close in time, and the Figures not too far wide apart. 239