20 [24] The two issues identified in the previous paragraph were not addressed in that form by the court below and they were not raised in precisely those terms in the formulation of Mr Prins’ objection to the charge sheet. There it was said that the charge did not comply with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA) because it did not refer to the penalty provisions applicable to the crime; that because there was no reference to any penalty provisions the charge lacked a material element of the statutory offence; that the charge did not disclose an offence because it did not refer to the applicable penalty provisions and that it lacked sufficient particularity because of the absence of a reference to the relevant penalty provisions. In each of these forms the objection was deficient because it proceeded from the erroneous premise that it is necessary to the validity of a charge, at least one of committing a statutory offence, to specify the penal consequences of conviction. That is not correct. All that is required is that the charge set out the particulars of the offence with which the accused is charged. 33 That does not include the sentence that may be imposed on conviction. It is only necessary to specify the penal consequences of conviction where the prosecution proposes to rely upon specific provisions, such as those in the minimum sentencing legislation, where it is necessary to forewarn the accused of the potential consequences of conviction, if that may affect the manner in which the defence is conducted. Whilst it may be customary and desirable, when an offence is created by statute and the statute also specifies the penalty, for the charge sheet to refer to the penalty, 34 its absence does not render the charge invalid or warrant the quashing of the 33 Section 84(1) of the CPA. Insofar as the judgment in S v Rautenbach 1991 (2) SA 700 (T) at 701j702a suggests that the penalty is an essential part of a statutory criminal offence that statement was obiter and is incorrect. 34 S v Ndlovu 1999 (2) SACR 645 (W) at 649f-i