This illustration by the great author, is very much in consonance with the decided cases referred to and with what I have tried to expound of the said provisions in this judgment. I therefore discountenance the Appellants submission and hold that the conviction of the Appellant under Section 285 is within the contemplation of a lesser offence in Section 217 for which he could be convicted without the need to frame a new charge. Furthermore on the 2nd arm of the argument that failure to frame a new charge infringes on the Appellants constitutional right to fair hearing, I find it difficult to subscribe to that submission and see it as an attempt to impute into the provisions of Sections 217 and 218 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code a condition not so imposed by the statue. There is no requirement, by their plain and ordinary meaning, for the framing of a new charge or that the accused be put on notice where the Court decides to invoke its powers to convict the accused for a proved lesser offence consisting of some particulars of the offence charged. The 39 lesser offence is in fact implicit in the greater or aggravated offence for which the Appellant is deemed to have notice of the lesser offence revealed by evidence. It must be borne in mind that the lesser offence of gross indecency for which the Appellant was convicted arose from the evidence led in support of the more serious offence of rape in respect of which the Appellant was charged. Obviously, the Appellant had notice of the lesser offence of gross indecency for which he could be convicted. He is indeed deemed to have had notice of the lesser offence. In NWACHUKWU VS THE STATE (Supra) while interpreting the provisions of Section 179 of the C.P.A., which is in pari materia with Sections 217 and 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code under consideration, the Supreme Court per Karibi-Whyte JSC at pages 400 401 lines 25 3 held: Thus where the accused has notice of an aggravated offence, he also has notice of the lesser offence for which he could be convicted. The assumption which is legitimate, is that accused would have challenged the more serious offence and must be fully aware of the case against him in respect of the