ABEKE v THE STATE (SC 271/2005) [2007] NGSC 195 (30 March 2007)

**ABEKE** **(APPELLANT)** **_v_.** **THE** **S****TATE** **(DEFENDANT)** **(2007)** **2** **All** **N.L.R.** **1** **Div****i****si****o****n:** Supreme Court of Nigeria **D****at****e** **o****f** **Judgment:** 30 March 2007 **C****as****e** **Num****b****er:** SC 271/2005 **Before:** Idris Legbo Kutigi, Cjn Niki Tobi, Jjsc George Adesola Oguntade, Jsc Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, Jsc Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, Jsc **I****SS****U****E****S** _Whether_ _th_ _e_ _ap_ _pellant_ _wa_ _s_ _gui_ _lty_ _o_ _f_ _a_ _n_ _offenc_ _e_ _und_ _er_ _section_ _1(1)__(b)_ _o_ _f_ _th_ _e_ _Dishono_ _ured_ _Cheque_ _s_ _(O_ _ffences)_ _Ac_ _t_ _No_ _._ _4_ _4_ _of_ _1977_ _by_ _obtaining_ _credit_ _of_ _~~N~~ 3,300_ _from_ _one_ _Ganiyu_ _Ajayi_ _by_ _means_ _of_ _a_ _cheque_ _drawn_ _in_ _his_ _favour_ _and_ _dishonoured_ _on_ _grounds_ _that_ _the_ _appellant_ _had_ _insufficient_ _funds_ _in_ _h_ _er_ _account_ _t_ _o_ _cover_ _the_ _face_ _value_ _of_ _the_ _cheque._ **F****ACT****S** _On_ _4_ _September_ _1981_ _Ajayi_ _loaned_ _the_ _appellant_ _~~N~~ 2,000_ _to_ _enable_ _her_ _to_ _execute_ _a_ _contract_ _awarded_ _to_ _her_ _by_ _the_ _Ogun_ _State_ _Ministry_ _of_ _Agriculture._ _A_ _week_ _later_ _Ajayi_ _loaned_ _a_ _further_ _amount_ _of_ _~~N~~ 1,300_ _to_ _the_ _appellant,_ _but_ _requested_ _that_ _the_ _transaction_ _be_ _d_ _ocumented._ _On_ _29_ _September_ _1981,_ _the_ _appellant_ _gave_ _Ajayi_ _a_ _post-dated_ _c_ _heque_ _for_ _~~N~~ 3,300_ _covering_ _both_ _loans._ _The_ _appellant_ _produced_ _her_ _cheque_ _book,_ _and_ _being_ _illiterate,_ _asked_ _Ajayi_ _to_ _write_ _out_ _the_ _cheque_ _evidencing_ _the_ _loan_ _grant,_ _which_ _he_ _did._ _The_ _appellant_ _then_ _signed_ _and_ _rubber-stamped_ _the_ _cheque._ _Ajayi_ _paid_ _the_ _cheque_ _into_ _his_ _account_ _on_ _29_ _September_ _1981_ _but_ _it_ _was_ _returned_ _unpaid._ _Despite_ _numerous_ _demands_ _by_ _Ajayi,_ _the_ _appellant_ _failed_ _or_ _refused_ _to_ _pay_ _him_ _the_ _amount_ _of_ _~~N~~ 3,300,_ _and_ _finally,_ _in_ _1989,_ _brought_ _an_ _action_ _against_ _the_ _appellant._ _T_ _he_ _a_ _ppellant_ _denied_ _issuing_ _the_ _cheque_ _for_ _~~N~~ 3,300_ _t_ _o_ _Ajayi_ _._ _Sh_ _e_ _a_ _dmitted_ _rece_ _ivi_ _n_ _g_ _a_ _l_ _o_ _a_ _n_ _fro_ _m_ _h_ _i_ _m_ _fo_ _r_ _~~N~~_ _1_ _,500,_ _o_ _f_ _which_ _s_ _he_ _c_ _laimed_ _t_ _o_ _have_ _re_ _paid_ _~~N~~ 500._ _She_ _claimed_ _further_ _that_ _she_ _had_ _lost_ _her_ _cheque_ _book_ _in_ _1981._ _The_ _appellant_ _was_ _found_ _guilty_ _of_ _offence_ _under_ _the_ _Dishonoured_ _Cheques_ _(Offences)_ _Act_ _and_ _sentenced_ _to_ _two_ _years'_ _imprisonment._ _She_ _appealed_ _to_ _the_ _Court_ _of_ _Appeal,_ _which_ _court_ _dismissed_ _her_ _appeal._ _She_ _appealed_ _further_ _t_ _o_ _the_ _Supreme_ _C_ _ourt._ **HELD** **L****eadin****g** **judg****m****en****t** by George Adesola Oguntade, JSC with I.L. Kutigi CJN, N. Tobi, A.M. Mukhtar and W.S.N.Onnoghen, JJSC concurring **1****.** **Cheque** **not** **merely** **a** **documentation** **of** **loan** **transaction** There was no merit in the appellant's claim that the dishonoured cheque should not be viewed as a medium of payment but merely as documentation of the loan transaction. Per Oguntade, JSC at 3. **2****.** **A** **cheque** **is** **a** **medium** **of** **payment** The issuance of a cheque serves to document a particular transaction and to be a medium of payment with far-reaching implications in law. Per Oguntade, JSC at 3. **3****.** **Appellant's** **defence** **of** **not** **issuing** **a** **cheque** **merely** **fanciful** The appellant's defence that she had not issued the cheque was utterly fanciful and should be rejected. Per Oguntade JSC at 3. **4****.** **Offence** **of** **issuing** **a** **dishonoured** **cheque** **committed** The appellant had committed an offence under section 1(2)(_b_) of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act in that she had issued a cheque in settlement of an obligation arising under an enforceable contract, which cheque was dishonoured by non-payment when presented after due date. Per Oguntade, JSC at 3. _O_ _l_ _a_ _d_ _i_ _p_ _o_ _O_ _k_ _p_ _e_ _s_ _e_ _y_ _i_ _,_ _E_ _s_ _q_ _._ for the appellant with him is _Emeka_ _Okpala_ _Esq._ _Y_ _._ _Or_ _e_ _s_ _a_ _n_ _y_ _a_ _(__M_ _r_ _s_ _)_ for the respondent **Th****e** **f****o****llow****i****n****g** **ca****s****e****s** **we****r****e** **ref****e****rre****d** **t****o** **i****n** **t****h****i****s** **j****u****dgme****n****t****:** **N****i****g****e****r****i****a** _Aba_ _y_ _on_ _u_ _A_ _d_ _ele_ _n_ _w_ _a_ _v_ _T_ _h_ _e_ _St_ _a_ _t_ _e_ (1972) 10 SC 13 _Al_ _a_ _b_ _i_ _v_ _St_ _a_ _t_ _e_ (1993) 7 NWLR (Part 307) 511 _Aseimo_ _v_ _Abraha_ _m_ 16 NWLR (Part 738) 20 _Bo_ _s_ _ha_ _l_ _i_ _v_ _A_ _l_ _li_ _e_ _d_ _C_ _om_ _m_ _e_ _r_ _ci_ _a_ _l_ _E_ _xp_ _o_ _r_ _t_ _er_ _s_ _L_ _t_ _d_ (1961) 2 SCNLR 322 _C_ _h_ _i_ _nd_ _o_ _W_ _or_ _l_ _d_ _w_ _id_ _e_ _L_ _t_ _d_ _v_ _T_ _ot_ _a_ _l_ _(N_ _i_ _ge_ _r_ _i_ _a_ _)_ _Pl_ _c_ (2000) 16 NWLR (Part 739) 291 _Chinwend_ _u_ _v_ _Mbama_ _l_ _i_ (1980) 3-4 SC 31 _Chukw_ _u_ _v_ _D_ _._ _Al_ _a_ (1999) 6 NWLR (Part 608) 674 _Ain_ _a_ _v_ _M.__A_ _._ _Ji_ _n_ _ad_ _u_ _&_ _an_ _o_ _th_ _e_ _r_ (1992) 4 NWLR (Part 233) 91 _Egboghon_ _o_ _m_ _e_ _v_ _T_ _h_ _e_ _Stat_ _e_ (1993) 7 NWLR (Part 306) 383 _Ferguson_ _v_ _Commissioner_ _for_ _Works_ _&_ _Housing_ _Lagos_ _State_ (1999) 4 NWLR (Part 638) 315 _Ib_ _o_ _d_ _o_ _v_ _E_ _na_ _r_ _o_ _f_ _i_ _a_ (1980) 5-7 SC 42 _MIA_ _&_ _Sons_ _Ltd_ _v_ _FHA_ (1991) 8 NWLR (Part 209) 295 _Mohammed_ _v_ _St_ _ate_ (1991) 5 NWLR (Part 192) 438 _Nwosu_ _v_ _State_ (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 35) 348 **T****h****e** **f****o****l****l****o****wi****n****g** **s****t****a****t****u****t****e****s** **w****er****e** **re****f****e****r****r****e****d** **t****o** **i****n** **t****h****i****s** **j****ud****g****m****e****n****t****:** **N****i****g****e****r****i****a** Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act (Cap. 102 LFN 1990): S 1(1)(_a_), (_b_)(i), (2); 2(_a_), (_b_); (3) Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) [Act No 44 of 1977](/akn/ng/act/1977/44): S 1(1)(_b_) **O****GUN****T****ADE****,** **JS****C** **(****D****ELI****V****ERE****D** **T****H****E** **L****E****ADI****N****G** **JUD****G****MEN****T****):****-** The appellant, Bolanle Abeke, was charged on an information, before the Abeokuta High Court of Ogun State for an offence under section 1(1)(_b_) of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) [Act No 44 of 1977](/akn/ng/act/1977/44). It was alleged that the appellant obtained a credit of ~~N~~ 3,300 (Three Thousand, Three Hundred Naira) from one Ganiyu Ajayi by means of cheque no. UDB 130480, Nigeria-Arab Bank Nigeria Ltd, Odeda and, the said cheque when presented on due date was dishonoured on the ground that the appellant had no sufficient funds in her account to cover the face value of the said cheque. The offence was tried by Popoola, J. The prosecution called seven witnesses. The appellant testified in her own defence and called three other witnesses. On 11 October 1995, Popoola, J in his well-written and comprehensive judgment found the appellant guilty as charged. The appellant was sentenced to a two-year term of imprisonment. Dissatisfied with her conviction, the appellant brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Ibadan (hereinafter referred to as "the court below"). The court below (coram: Roland, Ibiyeye and Tabai, JJCA) in a unanimous judgment on 4 July 2005 dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed the conviction of and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Still dissatisfied, the appellant has come before this Court on a final appeal. In the appellant's Brief filed, the appellant's Counsel has formulated a solitary issue for determination in the appeal. The said issue reads:- "Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the decision of the trial court that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in the circumstance of this case." The respondent in its Brief agreed with the issue formulated for determination by the appellant. It is necessary to examine the case made against the appellant at the trial court by the prosecution in the consideration of the only issue for determination in this appeal. The case may be summarised thus: On 4 September 1981, the appellant sought from PW2, a loan of ~~N~~ 2,000. She wanted to apply the money to execute a contract awarded to her by the Ogun State Ministry of Agriculture. PW2 gave the appellant the loan sought from him. A week later, the appellant approached PW2 for a further loan of ~~N~~ 2,000. PW2 gave the appellant ~~N~~ 1,300. He however requested that the transaction be documented. The appellant opted to give a post-dated cheque for the total sum of ~~N~~ 3,300 covering both loans. Being an illiterate, the appellant brought out her cheque book which she requested the PW2 to write upon for her evidencing the loan grant. The PW2 wrote the cheque which the appellant signed and rubber-stamped. The wife of PW2 had been present on the two occasions when the appellant came seeking the loan. She testified as PW3. The cheque leaf was post-dated to 29 September 1981. On that date PW2 paid the cheque into his account. The cheque Exhibit 'B' was returned unpaid. The appellant, notwithstanding the pressure brought on her by PW2 to pay the money, did not do so. Rather, she sent emissaries to PW2 pleading for time. She wrote Exhibits 'A'-'A1' appealing to PW2. In 1989 some eight years after the loan was granted to the appellant, PW2 learnt that the Ogun State Ministry of Agriculture had paid the appellant on the contract. Still, the appellant did not pay up. In frustration, the PW2 brought a suit against the appellant for the recovery of the sum of ~~N~~ 3,300. The appellant, in reaction to the suit by PW2, reported to the Police that PW2 had stolen her cheque for ~~N~~ 2,000. PW2 was arrested and prosecuted and thereafter discharged and acquitted. The appellant was thereafter charged for issuing a dud cheque. I stated earlier that the wife of PW2 testified as PW3 and gave evidence as to the events which she had witnessed leading to the issuance of the cheque leaf Exhibit 'B'. PW4 was a handwriting analyst, who upon a comparison of the specimen signature of the appellant with the signature on the cheque leaf Exhibit 'B' stated that Exhibit 'B' in fact bore the signature of the appellant. PW5 was the accountant at the Nigeria Arab Bank, Odeda where the appellant kept an account. He tendered the statement of account of the appellant for the period 6 February 1981-29 December 1981 as Exhibit 'H'. Exhibit 'H' shows that the appellant's account with the Odeda branch of Nigeria Arab Bank was in the red to the tune of ~~N~~ 494.80 with effect from 18 September 1981-29 September 1981 when Exhibit 'B' issued by the appellant was lodged by PW2 into his account. PWs 6 and 7 were the Investigating Police Officers. The appellant testified in her own defence. She denied issuing the cheque, Exhibit 'B', to PW2. She admitted that PW2 granted her a loan of ~~N~~ 1,500 out of which she paid back ~~N~~ 500\. She said further that her cheque book was lost in 1981 and she reported the loss to her bank in writing in 1982. In reacting to the solitary issue for determination in this appeal, it is important to bear in mind the findings of fact made by the trial court. This is against the background that, when evidence is found to be incredible by the court of trial, such evidence becomes incapable of sustaining a defence built on it. At pages 44-46 of the record, the trial court held:- "There is evidence before me that the accused signed Exhibit 'B'. PW4 testified here as having examined Exhibit 'B', he compared the signature thereon with the handwriting and signature of Exhibit 'A' (A letter of apology handwritten by the accused to PW2) as well as Exhibits 'D'-'D5' with comparative table shown on Exhibit 'E' which vividly revealed features of similarity and came to the conclusion that the writer of Exhibit 'A' (i.e. the accused) is the same as the writer of Exhibits 'D'-'D5' as well as the signature on Exhibit 'B' - (the offending cheque) which he said was even obvious to a lay man to see and compare. I believe the evidence of PW4. He has done a good job and the explanation even under devastating cross-examination was clear and straightforward - maintaining a steady stand and unshaken. This in turn confirmed PW2 whose evidence I also accept and believe. It is noted that this PW4, the expert, was not contradicted, and was not cross-examined as to the accused not signing Exhibit 'B', and to me his credibility remains untainted due to failure to elicit any evidence adverse to the opinion of PW4, which is a basis to believe the said PW4. (See _MIA_ _&_ _Sons_ _Ltd_ _v_ _FHA_ (1991) 8 NWLR (Part 209) 295, 298 HOLDING 7 paragraphs 313 E-H). Besides the evidence of the Handwriting Expert PW4, I have myself examined the signature on the said cheque - Exhibit 'B', with the letter and signature on Exhibit 'A' - Letter hand written by the accused as well as the specimen signatures on Exhibits 'D'-'D5' and the comparative table in Exhibits 'A', 'B', 'D', 'E', thereon and have compared them as well as Exhibit 'E' with the disputed signature on Exhibit 'B' and I have formed my opinion that they were all written and signed by the accused, which I believe I have power to do, being an option open to me, assuming I am not bound by the evidence of the expert witness (PW4). I am reinforced in this belief by the decision in _Dr_ _Aina_ _v_ _M.A._ _Jinadu_ _&_ _another_ (1992) 4 NWLR (Part 233) 91, 98 Holding 18 p.107 paragraphs F-G - plus also the fact that the accused in one breath said she lodged a written report, she next said, oral report but, that Exhibit 'L' was issued to her in replacement. PW5 or DW4, her own witness, testified that Exhibit L i.e. 104-010 series having nothing to do with Exhibits 'B', as '104' series were meant for debtors - i.e. those on Overdraft and cheques issued thereunder could never go into the Current Account 101-289 - whereas the impression the accused gave, was that she was issued Exhibit 'L' when she reported the loss of Exhibit 'B' - which she later found in her house after 8 years. I hold the strong view also, that Exhibit 'L' having no connection or relevance with Exhibit B, it is irrelevant in this case. The accused admitted signing portions marked 'B' 'D' 'E' on Exhibit 'E' which incidentally are the signatures on Exhibit A, Exhibit 'B' and Exhibits 'D'-'D5' - what an irony - her sins have found her out. In Exhibit J the accused admitted not reporting any loss of any cheque leaf either to the Bank or the police but in her testimony she first said she reported in writing, later still, that it was orally. Exhibit 'J' is inconsistent with her testimony. In cases like this, the trial court is entitled not only to reject the earlier extra judicial statement but also not to act upon the evidence in court - which will be treated as unreliable, and in the place of both the earlier statement and such evidence, the court will instead rely on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and the witness (i.e. the accused here) treated as unreliable - but both the statement and her testimony must be assessed and evaluated by the Court together with other relevant evidence in order to reach a just decision - all or which I have done in this case. (See: _Egboghonome_ _v_ _State_ (1990) 7 NWLR (Part 306) 383, 388-391 Holdings 4, 5, 6.)" The court below in its judgment at pages 71-72 of the record affirmed the findings of the trial court in these words:- "It is common ground that the appellant issued Exhibit 'B' in favour of the PW2. It is also common ground that Exhibit 'B' was returned to the PW2 (the drawee of Exhibit 'B') unpaid. The implication of that was that the cheque issued in favour of the PW2 wasdishonoured for reason of insufficiency of funds to the appellant's credit. No useful purpose will be served by considering the denial of the appellant as regards issuing Exhibit 'B' to the PW2. There is sumptuous evidence albeit uncontroverted that the appellant issued Exhibit B. (See _Ferguson_ _v_ _Commissioner_ _for_ _Works_ _&_ _Housing_ _Lagos_ _State_ (1999) 4 NWLR (Part 638) 315 at 328; _Chukwu_ _v_ _D._ _Ala_ (1999) 6 NWLR (Part 608) 674 at 681 and _Boshali_ _v_ _Allied_ _Commercial_ _Exporters_ _Ltd_ (1961) 2 SCNLR 322). It is trite that when evidence of a party to a suit is not debunked or challenged by the opposite party which had the opportunity to do so, the trial Court or tribunal seised of the proceedings ought to accept and act on it. The worthlessness of the appellant's denial is amply supported by the evidence of the PW2, the PW3 and the PW4 who are respectively the drawee of the dishonoured cheque, his wife and handwriting analyst who confirmed the fact of issuing Exhibit 'B' and that the signature on Exhibit 'B' was that of the appellant." Before us in this Court, the main plank of the argument of appellant's Counsel was that Exhibit 'B', the dishounored cheque, should not be viewed as a medium of payment by the appellant to PW2 but rather as merely a documentation of the loan transactions between PW2 and the appellant. In other words, Counsel argued that Exhibit 'B' could not be regarded as being issued "to obtain credit". At page 7 of the appellant's Brief, it was argued thus:- "PW2 admitted the appellant was an illiterate who could only sign her name. PW2 said since appellant did not issue a receipt he needed some form of documentation. The appellant produced her cheque book, handed it over to PW2 to fill it. The only interpreter, beneficiary or victim therefore is PW2. He has said the purpose of issuing Exhibit 'B' was to capture or document the transaction. Any other meaning or presumption drawn would be absurd, extraneous to the transaction. The appellant can only be deemed to understand what PW2 said, that he wanted documentation of the transaction." Appellant's Counsel relied on the following cases: _Abayonu_ _Adelenwa_ _v_ _The_ _State_ (1972) 10 SC 13; _Egboghonome_ _v_ _State_ (1993) 7 NWLR (Part 306) 383; _Mohammed_ _v_ _State_ (1991) 5 NWLR (Part 192) 438; _Nwosu_ _v_ _State_ (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 35) 348 and finally _Alabi_ _v_ _State_ (1993) 7 NWLR (Part 307) 511. In reacting to the submission of the appellant's Counsel, it is necessary to bear in mind the relevant evidence of PW2. At page 12 of the record of proceedings PW2 testified thus:- "A week later she again begged for another ~~N~~ 2,000 but he asked her to come back and he later gave her ~~N~~ 1,300 because that was what he could afford. His wife was present on both occasions - but he on the second occasion insisted to have both documented - but accused said instead she would issue a post-dated cheque for both amounts. She opened her bag and brought out the cheque book but said she could only sign her name and put her stamp but could not write and even in the Bank she is always assisted to write her cheques. He obliged her and she signed the cheque and stamped it with her stamp and delivered same to him - a post-dated cheque dated 29 September 1981." (Please note that the trial Judge recorded the evidence of PW2 in the third person rather than in the first person.) A perusal of the above passage of the evidence of PW2 only shows that he had requested from the appellant a documentary proof of the transaction between him and the appellant. Perhaps a simple agreement evidencing the loan transaction would have satisfied PW2. But that is now a speculation. The evidence of PW2 shows that it was the appellant who offered to have the transaction documented by the issuance of her cheque. The issuance of a cheque has certain connotations in law. A cheque issued by a drawer and accepted by the drawee serves two purposes. One is that of documenting the particular transaction. The other is that, it is a medium of payment, the issuance of which has far reaching implications in law. I am unable to accept the argument of appellant's Counsel that the cheque issued by the appellant was to be seen only as a documentation of the loan transaction between the appellant and PW2; and that Exhibit 'B' be held not to possess the attributes ascribed by law to such an instrument. In any case, the submission of the appellant's Counsel is utterly fanciful in the circumstances; and unrelated to the defence put up by the appellant. The defence of the appellant was that she did not issue Exhibit 'B', not that she understood it to be a mere statement of account. Did the appellant not know the implication of post-dating a cheque against a specific date? I do not think that the submission by appellant's Counsel on this score can be considered as a reasonable one. It was not the first time the appellant was handling a cheque. The standards set by law as to the liability imposed upon the drawer of a cheque cannot be varied in the circumstances of this case. Section 1(1), (2), (3) of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act, Cap. 102, Laws of the Federation, 1990 provides:- "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 credit of the drawer of the cheque in the bank on which the cheque was drawn, shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction shall:- (i) in the case of an individual be sentenced to imprisonment for two years, without the option of a fine, and (ii) in the case of a body corporate be sentenced to a fine of not less than ~~N~~ 5,00. 2\. For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section:- (_a_) the reference to anything capable of being stolen shall be deemed to include a reference to money and every other description of property, things in action and other intangible property; (_b_) a person who draws a cheque which is dishonoured on the ground stated in the subsection and which was issued in settlement or purported settlement of any obligation under an enforceable contract entered into between the drawer of the cheque and the person to whom the cheque was issued, shall be deemed to have obtained credit for himself by means of the cheque notwithstanding that at the time when the contract was entered into, the manner in which the obligation would be settled was not specified. 3\. A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that when he issued the cheque he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe in fact, that it would be honoured if presented for payment within the period specified in subsection (1) of this section." On the facts as found by the two courts below, there was not doubt that the appellant had committed an offence under section 1(2)(_b_) above. She had issued a cheque in settlement of an obligation arising under an enforceable contract, which said cheque was dishonoured when presented not later than three months after the date of the cheque. I am of the firm conviction that the guilt of the appellant was established before the trial court and that her conviction and sentence were properly affirmed by the court below. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed. **KU****T****IG****I****,** **C****J****N:****-** I have had the privilege of reading in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Oguntade, JSC. I entirely agree with him that the appeal has no merit. There is abundant evidence on record which shows that the appellant committed the offence for which she was charged and convicted. I am clearly of the view that she was rightly convicted by the trial Court