where a statement of offence has been properly stated but the particulars fail to contain any of the essential ingredients of the offence, then it becomes a statement of offence with incomplete or defective particulars and not a bad indictment or one that is unknown to the law. In this connection the word “defect” should be interpreted in its ordinary dictionary sense to mean “lack of something essential to completeness” and not in the restrictive sense given to it in the State v Boahene (1965) C.C 125, SC., namely, the omission of an averment which in not a sine qua non averment or is not a gravamen of the offence.” If the omission does not cause any embarrassment or prejudice to the appellant’s case and the defect is cured by the evidence adduced at the trial, the courts are bound to apply proviso to Act 30, s. 330 as amended by Act 261, and Act, 30 s. 406 and the proviso to the Courts Act, 1960 (CA. 9), s.15 as repealed and replaced by N.L.C.D. 84, para. 13(1). State v Lawmann [1961] G.L.R. (pt.II) 698, SC.; R. v McVitie (1960) 44 Cr. App. R. 201 and R. v Ijoma F.SC. 309 applied Akowuah v C.O.P. SC. 20 June 1964, unreported and State v Boahene (1965) C.C. 125, SC. disapproved Opali v The Queen (1962) E.A.L.R. 661 cited.