The Prosecution called two witnesses to wit: Maimuna Ibrahim who testified as Pw1 and was cross examined by the defence Counsel and Mr. Kimfa Fadip- the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) who testified as Pw2 and was cross examined by the defence Counsel. At the close of the Prosecutor’s case, the Accused through his Counsel raised a No Case to Answer Submission which the Prosecutor opposed. The parties filed and exchanged Written Addresses in this regard. In its Ruling delivered on 8th February, 2013 the Court upheld the submission with respect to Count 1 of the charge and discharged the Accused on that. It however dismissed the submission with respect to Counts 2 and 3 of the charge. The Accused thereafter testified for himself as Dw1 in defence of the said Counts 2 and 3 of the charge. He was cross examined by the Prosecuting Counsel. He closed his case on 12th March, 2014. This done, his learned Counsel however filed a Motion on Notice seeking for an Order of the Court staying further proceedings in the case pending the hearing and determination of the Interlocutory Appeal he filed against the Court’s Ruling of 3rd February, 2014. The application was heard and in a Ruling delivered on 11th June, 2014, the Court dismissed same. The parties were then given time frames within which to file and exchange Final Written Addresses which they did after some hitches. The Accused person through his Counsel adopted his Final Written Address on 5th November, 2014, the Prosecuting Counsel being absent and having no Final Written Address in the file of the Court at the time of the proceeding. This has now set the stage for this Judgment. I have carefully read the said Written Address of the Accused person. I have also weighed the evidence of both the Prosecution and Accused person in support of and defence of the Counts 2 and 3 of the charge. The crucial question is whether or not the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts the ingredients of the offence of issuing dishonoured cheques per the Oceanic Bank International Plc Cheque nos: 1823925 and 18239321 by the Accused to Maimuna Ibrahim as provided by Section 1 of the Dishonoured Cheque Act LFN 2004. Section 1 of the Dishonoured Cheques Act provides thus:“1(1). Any person who (a). obtains or induces the delivery of anything capable of being stolen either to himself or to any other person, or (b). obtains credit for himself or any other person, by means of a cheque that, when presented for payment not later than three months after the date of the cheque, is dishonoured on the ground that no funds or insufficient funds were standing to the 2