the charge then it will be dismissed not struck out as in the case where the charge is incompetent. Secondly on the issue of duplication of offences, I have looked at Counts 2 and 3 of the amended charge which I have set out earlier. In each of the mentioned counts the Defendants are accused of receiving N10,000,000 which is the value of each separate and different cheques i.e. cheque no. 06676307 in Count 2 and cheque no. 06676308 in Count 3 of the amended charge. Learned Counsel to the 1st – 3rd Defendants’ mind may not have been averted to this difference. Although part of the same transaction, the law permits the offences allegedly committed in respect of the two cheques to be charged differently as two counts. By virtue of Section 215 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 it provides as follows; 215. “Where a single act or omission the fact or combination of facts constitutes more than one offence, the defendant may be charged and tried at one trial for one or more of those offences.” The instant charge is therefore not bad for duplication of offences as argued by Counsel to the 1st – 3rd Defendants. I have read through the provisions of Sections 194 – 222 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 which relate to charges and the requirements thereof. The reasons given by Counsel to the 1st – 3rd Defendants for contending that the instant charge is incompetent and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it cannot be sustained. Under Section 195 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the regularity of the amended charge in this case must be presumed. It follows therefore, that this Court have jurisdiction in respect of the amended charge. Counsel to the 1st – 3rd Defendants has failed to rebut this presumption. Hence therefore I hold the view that the instant amended charge is competent and this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain same against the Defendants and I so hold. The 1st – 3rd Defendants’ Counsel’s first issue is hereby resolved against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendant in favour of the prosecution. 27