The convictions on the counts for stealing, however, cannot be upheld. The evidence showed that the appellant obtained a number of cheques by means of forged vouchers and paid those cheques into his own bank accounts. Thereafter he drew on his own accounts and the Judge upheld the submission of the prosecution that in doing so he stole the money of the drawer of the cheques which he had paid into his accounts. If a cheque obtained by fraud is later honoured by the drawers bank, the payee may become the debtor of the drawer; he is not his trustee, and he acquires a good title to the proceeds of the cheque, so that even if it had been strictly proved that the appellant’s bank had collected the proceeds of the cheques on his behalf from the drawer’s bank, it could not be said that in drawing on his own account the appellant took or converted money which still belonged to the drawer of the cheques. There is no doubt, however, that the cheques themselves were obtained with intent to defraud and by the false pretence that the vouchers were genuine, and as the obtaining of the cheques formed part of the same series of acts as the acts alleged to constitute stealing, the Court below would have had power under section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code to convict the appellant of obtaining the cheques by false pretences, and this court has power under section 27(2) of the Federal Supreme Court Act to substitute a conviction for that offence. For the convictions for stealing money on counts 15, 16, 17 and 18 we therefore substitute in each case a conviction under section 419 of the Criminal Code for obtaining by false pretences and with intent to defraud a cheque for the same amount of money as is referred to in the count, and we pass a sentence of five years imprisonment for each of those four offences, and direct that those sentences shall run concurrently with each other and with the sentences imposed on the counts for uttering and cheating.