Concluding, he stated the Accused did not redeem the amount covered in the two cheques. He made undertakings to refund the amounts but did not do so. Under cross examination, the witness testified inter alia that he was the leading investigating Police Officer in the case. He reiterated that the nominal complainant wrote a Petition to the Commissioner of Police and it was endorsed to the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police (CID) for investigation. One of the IPO’s counter signed the statement of the Accused person. He denied being absent when the Accused wrote his statement at the Police Station. He insisted he interviewed the Accused and the nominal Complainant. He said he has served the Nigeria Police for 33years and does not know the nominal Complainant as a Money Lender. When shown Exhibits A and E, he insisted the nominal Complainant is not a Money Lender. That she complained therein that she entered into a joint venture Agreement with the Accused person following his approaching her to bring part of the money he needed to execute a contract which she did. He identified Exhibits C and D as the dishonoured cheques issued by the Accused to the nominal Complainant. That the mark “DAR” on them means “Drawers Attention Required”. This means the cheques bounced. The phrase implies there is no money in the Accused’s Account to sustain the cheque. He also has a letter from the bank confirming this. Dwelling further, he testified that the Police is not a debt recovery agency. They investigated the criminal aspect of the transaction which is issuance of dud cheque. The witness also identified Exhibits G and H as undertakings made by the Accused at the Police Station. That therein the Accused promised to pay the sum of money on the cheques which if he paid would have been used as Exhibits against him but he did not pay. He denied the undertakings having been made under duress. Under re-examination, he testified that the amount in Exhibit C is N1, 291, 437.00 while that in Exhibit D is N2, 350, 948.00 both totaling N3, 971, 385.00. In his defence, the Accused testified for himself as Dw1. He testified inter alia that he knows the Complainant – Maimuna Ibrahim. She is a Money Lender. He borrowed money from her in 2009. He first borrowed N600, 000.00 from her. They made a Loan Agreement after borrowing the money. He did not sign any other document apart from the loan agreement. He has not issued the complainant a dud cheque. He issued her a post dated cheque as collateral for the money he collected from her. He did not have any contract transaction with the nominal Complainant. He denied knowing one Kimfa Fadip. 6