(5) Theft

THEFT  The parties involve are A, as the accused and B, as the victim. Then, the issue here is whether B can be held liable for offence of theft as defined under Section 378 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 379 of the same code for stealing B’s book. LAW PRINCIPLE Sect Sectio ion n 37 378 8 of Pena Penall Code Code stat states es that that whoe whoeve ver, r, inte intend ndin ing g to take take dishonestly any movable property out of possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. In order to constitute the offence of theft, there are five elements must be fulfilled. Firstly, there there must must be an inten intentio tion n to take take dish dishon ones estl tly. y. The The word word ‘disho ‘dishones nest’ t’ is defined defined in section the Pena Penall Code Code as whoever does section 24 of the anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another man, irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain, is said to do that thing ‘dishonestl ‘dishonestly’  y’ . Then, under section 23, wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not  lega legally lly enti entitl tled ed.. Meanw Meanwhi hile, le, wron wrongf gful ul loss loss is the the loss loss by unla unlawfu wfull means means of   property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. Therefore, Therefore, dishonest dishonest requires requires intention to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain at the time of moving property.  Then, in the case of  Munandu v PP, the accused had pleaded guilty to theft of a bicycle. Although he pleaded guilty, he claimed that he was drunk at the time of the incident and took the bicycle by mistake thinking it was his. It was held that if the accused really in good faith and believing believing that he bicycle bicycle to be his his prop proper erty ty,, he had had take taken n it out out of poss posses essi sion on,, then then he did did not not take take dishonestly and therefore did not commit theft. However, taking of property as a security for a debt was held to be theft in the case of  PP v Ramiah . In this case, the 3 accused accused were charged for a house breaking and theft for removing a trunk which was in possession of the victim.  The trunk with its contents was found several days later in the possession of one of the accused. The accused argued that the victim owed him money and the trunk was removed because it was for the purpose of security for the victim to pay the debt. The court then convicted them for theft.  The second element element that must must be satisfi satisfied ed in order order to consti constitut tute e an offence of theft is the property must be movable. Movable Movable is defined defined in section 22 of Penal Code as to include physical property of every description other than land.  The third element element that must be fulfilled fulfilled is the property should should be taken out of possession of another person. In the case of  Sri Churn Chungo, the court held held that that whoe whoeve verr move moves s prop propert erty y in orde orderr to take take it with with the the inten intenti tion on of  keeping the person is entitled to the possession of it out of the possession of it by unlawful means, though he does not intend to deprive him permanently of it, is said to commit theft.

 The next element element is that that the property property is taken taken withou withoutt consen consentt of the person. Explanation 5 of section 378 states that the consent may be express or implied and may be given either by the person in possession or by any person having that purpose authority either express or implied. STATE ILLUSTRATION (m) OF SECTION 378  The last element element is there there must must be a removal removal of proper property. ty. The propert property y must be moved or taken out of possession. It is sufficient that the person, who has formed formed such such dis dishon honest est intent intention, ion, moves that propert property y in order order to such such taking. Explanation 2 of section 378 of PC states that a moving, effected by the same same act act whic which h effe effect ct the the seve severa ranc nce, e, may may be thef theft. t. In the the case case of  Raja Mohamed v R, the appellant – chemical mixer- removed 2 dozen glasses – from stor store e on grou ground nd floo floorr – 2nd floor floor – no evide evidenc nce e of remov removed ed out out of vict victim’ im’s s possession – but had dishonest intention – moves the property – in order to move the property out of possession of the company. APPLICATION

CONCLUSION In conclusion, A may be held liable for f or theft under Section 378 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 379 of the same code for stealing B’s book.