support his contention that the cheques were given as mere collaterals and not to be presented to a bank for payment as no such intention was indicated or stated in them. It does appear to me that if it was the intention that the cheques were to serve as mere collaterals which were not to be presented to the bank for payment, the Accused would have clearly stated so in his Statement to the Police which was made at a time the Pw1 has laid a complaint of issuing dud cheques to her to the Police and he was confronted with the allegation. Indeed, a close reading of his said Statement shows he stated therein that at the time he gave the post dated cheque to the Pw1, he “was thinking that there will be money.” Besides Exhibit F, a reading of Exhibit G which the Accused admitted he wrote shows he undertook therein to pay the monies he owes the Pw1 by instalments failing which the law will take its course against him. He never indicated there that he issued Exhibits C and D as mere collaterals not to be presented to the bank. If indeed that was his intention, Exhibit G was a veritable opportunity to raise or reiterate the contention. The Court’s understanding of his undertaking in Exhibit G which was made on 5th October, 2010 is that he was simply trying to redeem the sums of money endorsed on Exhibits C and D which he issued in June and July, 2010. Beyond these, a perusal of the backside of Exhibits C and D shows the Accused clearly expressed his desire or intention for the cheques to be presented to and paid by the bank given his endorsement thereat. In Exhibit C, he expressed the intention under his hand thus: “Confirmed payment by Ubong John Udofia. Pls pay her with FCDA ID Card No. 21699.” He then appended his signature twice and his GSM telephone number being 08034502408 . Likewise at the back of Exhibit D he stated thus: “Confirmed payment by me. Pls pay her with FCDA ID Card No. 21699” Atop these he signed his signature twice, wrote his telephone number being 08034502408 and the date of issuance being 21st June 2010. The foregoing endorsements by the Accused person at the backside of Exhibits C and D clearly in my view shows he intended the cheques to be presented for payment and not used as mere collateral. They clearly put a lie to his instant contention. The contentions therefore do not induce belief in me. I therefore reject them. With respect to the issue of the cheques being presented three months after the due date, the Pw1 testified without contradiction under cross examination she presented the cheque twice and it was dishonourned. That she presented it on 10