On the condition for the applicability of Section 218 Criminal Procedure Code learned Counsel set out the ingredients of the offences of rape under Section 283 and act of gross indecency under Section 285 and submitted that in convicting the Appellant for the offence of act of gross indecency, the learned trial Judge did not apply the red pencil rule laid down in TORHAMBA VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 32 (1956) NRNLR 87 AT 94, for if he had done so, he would have realized that the residue of the remaining ingredients of rape after deleting the two unproved ingredients, do not constitute or form the particulars of the offence of gross indecency. A lesser offence for which an accused can be convicted is one that particulars are carved out of the particulars of the offence charged. He relied on the case of OKWUWA VS THE QUEEN (1965) NMLR 53 AT 55 and QUEEN VS NWOGUGUA AGUMADU (1963) 1 ALL NLR 203. The failure of the learned trial Judge to frame a new charge and invite the Appellant to take his plea for the offence of act of gross indecency after discharging and acquitting him of the offence of rape, learned Counsel profusely argued, contravened the cardinal principle of Natural Justice and the provisions of Section 36 (4) (5) (6) and (9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) thereby infringing on the Appellants right to fair hearing, citing in support the cases of ADEYEMI VS THE STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 790) 1201, 1209 B - D and ALABI VS NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 803) 1830 AT 1855 B 33 C. He also submitted that the said Sections 217 and 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code which empower a trial Court to convict an accused person without any charge, to the extent of their inconsistency with the