in essence shows they were presented to the bank twice by the Pw1 as she testified. I have given a thought to the implication of a bank marking the words “DAR” on a cheque presented to it for payment. In STANDARD TRUST BANK LTD V BARRISTER EZENWA ANUMNU (2008) 14NWLR (PT.1106) P.125, the Court of Appeal while dealing with the imports of the bank writing the phrases “Drawer Confirmation Required,” “Drawer Attention Required” and “Refer to Drawer” on a cheque held thus: “Drawer Confirmation Required”, “Drawer Attention Required” and “Refer to Drawer” mean the same things in banking operation, as they are warnings to dishonouring a cheque. A cheque is returned unpaid after being so marked. The connotation to a third party is that there is no fund or no sufficient fund in the account to accommodate the dishonoured cheque: see also: DIKE V ACB LTD (2000) 5NWLR (PT.657) P. 441. The foregoing decisions of the Courts clearly illustrate the point that in marking Exhibits C and D issued by the Accused to the Pw1 and the latter presented them to it for payment, that the Accused had no fund or did not have sufficient funds in his Account with it to accommodate the value of the cheques. By marking the cheques with the said “DAR” on the two occasions they were presented to it the bank loudly meant to be understood that the Accused had no funds or sufficient funds in his Account with it on both occasions to sustain the cheques. The foregoing imports of marking Exhibits C and D “DAR” are buttressed by the contents of Exhibits J and J2. Exhibit J is a Certificate issued by Ecobank Plc wherein the Accused holds an Account in the name of IB-Klenz Nig Ltd pursuant to the provision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act. Exhibit J2 is the Accused person’s Statement of Account held in the above name and which details out the transactions in the Account. The Pw2 did testify that in the course of his investigation he discovered that the Accused person’s Account with Oceanic Bank (later merged with Ecobank and now Ecobank) in the name of IB – Klenz Nig Ltd did not have a credit balance up to the tune of the sums in Exhibits C and D issued by the Accused in the months of June and July 2010 to sustain the cheques. The Accused did not lead any evidence in contradiction of this testimony. I have on my own part examined the said Statement of Account which is Exhibit J. It did not in the month of June 2010 have a credit balance of N2, 350, 948.00 to sustain Exhibit D. Likewise, it did not in the month of July 2010 have a credit balance sufficient to sustain the value of Exhibit C. Indeed, at no time in the year 2010 did it have a credit balance sufficient to accommodate the value of both Exhibit C and D. The Accused himself did admit under cross examination he maintains the Account in the name of IB Klenz Nig Ltd with Ecobank Ltd per Exhibit J1 and he is the sole signatory to it. He also admitted that it is correct that in the Statement of Account (Exhibit J2) the highest credit balance he had in the Account from 17th June, 2010 to 31st August, 2010 was 12