The document discusses the legal definition of theft under section 378 of the Penal Code, outlining the five key elements that must be fulfilled to constitute the offense. It highlights the importance of dishonest intention, the requirement for the property to be movable, and the necessity of taking the property out of another person's possession without consent. The conclusion is that individual A can be held liable for theft for stealing individual B's book.

1. 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
Section 378 of Penal Code states that whoever, intending to 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 must be an intention to take dishonestly. The word ‘dishonest’ is defined in section 24 of the
Penal Code as whoever does 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 ‘dishonestly’. Then, under section 23, wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means
of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. Meanwhile, wrongful loss is the loss by
unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. Therefore, dishonest
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
that he bicycle to be his property, he had taken it out of possession, then he did not 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 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 that must be satisfied in order to constitute an offence of theft is the
property must be movable. Movable is defined in section 22 of Penal Code as to include physical
property of every description other than land.
The third element that must be fulfilled is the property should be taken out of possession of
another person. In the case of Sri Churn Chungo, the court held that whoever moves property in
order to take it with the intention 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 is that the property is taken without consent 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

2. The last element is there must be a removal of property. The property must be moved or
taken out of possession. It is sufficient that the person, who has formed such dishonest intention,
moves that property in order to such taking. Explanation 2 of section 378 of PC states that a moving,
effected by the same act which effect the severance, may be theft. In the case of Raja Mohamed v
R, the appellant – chemical mixer- removed 2 dozen glasses – from store on ground floor – 2 nd floor
– no evidence of removed out of victim’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 theft under Section 378 of the Penal Code and
punishable under Section 379 of the same code for stealing B’s book.