948, the second dated 5th July, 2010 was in the sum of N1, 291, 437.00. When she presented the cheques in the bank on the due dates being 21st June, 2010 and 5th July, 2010 and subsequently, they were dishonoured by the bank for lack of t funds. The cheques were admitted as Exhibits C and D respectively. The Pw2 (The Investigating Police Officer) testified how he investigated the case upon the Pw1’s complaint being referred to his team and found that the Accused person was the sole signatory to the Account of I.B Klenz Nig Ltd whose cheques the Accused issued to the Pw1 and that the said Company’s Account with Oceanic Bank (Later merged with Ecobank Plc) had no funds on it to sustain the two cheques hence they were dishonoured. He tendered Exhibit I in this regard. Both in his Statement to the Police (Exhibit F), examination in chief and cross examination, the Accused person admitted he knew the nominal Complainant (Pw1) and that he borrowed money from her in 2009 as shown in Exhibits A and B and was supposed to pay her the sums as stated in Exhibit C to her. He also admitted being the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of IB Klenz Nigeria Limited. He admitted as well under cross examination that he issued Exhibits C and D to the Complainant. He however did not issue them to her to present to a bank but as collateral for the money he collected from her. From the foregoing, it is evident the Accused does not contest having borrowed the sums of money stated in Exhibits A and B from the nominal Complainant as well as having issued the cheques Exhibits C and D to her. By the records too, it is apparent that under cross examination he admitted he was the sole signatory of the company IB Klenz Nig Ltd on whose Account Exhibits C and D were drawn and that between 22nd December, 2010 and 22nd February, 2013 there was no credit balance of up to N2, 350.000.00 in it. Indeed he admitted that the Account never had a credit balance of up to this amount from inception to 2013. The highest credit balance was N20, 942.52. By the foregoing, the Court holds the clear view that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts the first element of the offence of issuance of dishonoured cheque i.e. issuance of the cheque by the Accused person to the nominal Complainant. With regard to the 2nd ingredient i.e. that the cheque was presented within 3 months from due dates, it is the Accused person’s case that the cheques were presented more than 3months after due date i.e. in December, 2010. He also did contend the cheques were not issued to the complainant for presentation to the bank but as collateral for money he collected from her. I have given a serious thought to the foregoing defence. A perusal of the Accused person’s Statement to the Police (ie Exhibit F) and the Agreements (Exhibits A and B) the parties executed in respect of the transaction does not 9