Hence, therefore, in the instant case, by the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and exhibits 6, 6(a), 7 and 7(a) in which the Defendants hatched the idea of producing and indeed did produced exhibit 3 which exhibit 3 is false or untrue, the prosecution has successfully proved the offence of Criminal Conspiracy contrary to Section 26 (1) (c) of the Act and punishable under Section 25 (1) (b) of the same Act against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt and I so hold. Thus, before I conclude, it is important to refer to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Defendants at paragraph 3.4 of his final written address. He submitted that it is trite that an accused person in every criminal proceeding must be charged for an offence known to the law and particulars of time i.e. date hour and venue stated in the charge. In the instant case, learned Counsel submitted that the charge stated the date as 19th August, 2015 while the evidence of PW1 stated that the Honourable Ndanusa called him on phone on 18th August, 2015. He then submitted that there is doubt as to the dates of which the particular offence was committed and he relied on Section 196(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and he also relied on the case of ANKWA V THE STATE, (Supra). I quite agree with the learned Counsel for the Defendants that it is trite that in criminal proceedings, a Defendant must be charged for an offence created by law and particulars of the offence or 47