Essentials of Theft: On the basis of section 378 of IPC the following are the essentials of theft. 1.

The accused must have a dishonest intention to take the property; (ii) The property must be movable;
(iii) The property must be taken out of the possession of another person, resulting in wrongful gain by
one and wrongful loss to another; (iv) The property must be moved in order to such taking i.e., obtaining
property by deception; and (v) Taking must be without that person's consent (expression implied).

A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but
it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth

H.J. Ransom v. Triloki Nath - B had taken a bus on hire, purchase system from a company which had
reserved the right of seizing the bus in case of default in payment of installments. The company took
possession of the bus by force from the driver of the bus who was B's servant. It was held that the
possession of the driver was possession of the master and the company was not entitled to recover
possession of the bus even though default in payment of installment had taken place. The question
whether ownership had or had not passed to the purchaser is wholly immaterial as this section deals
with possession and not ownership. Therefore, the agents of the company who had taken possession of
the bus forcibly were liable under this section.

intention is the gist of the offence. The taking will not amount to theft unless the intention with which it
is taken is dishonest Intention must be dishonest and it must so exist at the time of taking of the
property. Since some moving of the property is essential in order to accomplish taking of it, therefore,
the intention to take dishonestly must exist at the time of moving of the property.1 In Pyare Lal v. State,
MANU/SC/0152/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 1094, Subha Rao J., observed that "the section 378, I.P.C. may be
dissected into its component parts thus: A person will be guilty of theft (1) if he intends to cause a
wrongful gain or wrongful loss by unlawful means, of property to which the person gaining is not legally
entitled to or to which the person losing is entitled, as the case may be; (2) The said intention to act
dishonestly is in respect to movable property; (3) The said property shall be taken out of possession of
another person without his consent; and (4) he shall move such property in order to such taking."
Where the accused took a bundle belonging to himself, which was at the time in the possession of a
police constable, he was guilty of stealing because the constable had special property in bundle; Shiekh
Hassan, (1887) Unrep Cr C 343. In Queen Empress v. Nagappa, (1890) ILR 15 Bom 344, it was, however,
held that where a person takes another's property believing under a mistake of fact and in ignorance of
law, that he has a right to take it, he is not guilty of theft because there is no dishonest intention even
though he may cause wrongful loss.
n Pyare Lal v. State, MANU/SC/0152/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 1094, Subba Rao J., observed that, "To commit
theft one need not take movable property permanently out of possession of another person with the
intention not to return him. It would satisfy the definition if he took away any movable property out of
possession of another person though he intends to return it later on."

e the law laid down in Pyarelal Bhargava case? In Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan,
MANU/SC/0152/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 1094 the fact of the case was: The accused was a Superintendent in
Public Works Department of the State Government. A friend of his wanted a file of Public Works
Department under the control of the Chief Engineer for removing certain unfavourable documents and
putting documents which were more favourable to him. This was done by the accused. When the
tampering was discovered by the officer concerned both the accused were charged with the offence
under sections 379 and 465 with section 109, I.P.C. Both the accused were convicted and sentenced by
the trial court. The Sessions Judge maintained the conviction against the accused in respect to section
379. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. The conviction
and sentence passed against the second accused were set aside by the High Court. Before the Supreme
Court it was contended that (1) the Superintendent who was incharge of the file could not have taken
the file from himself; (2) there was no intention on the part of the accused to take the file dishonestly as
he did not receive any wrongful gain nor loss to any other person was caused. Dismissing the appeal the
Supreme Court held: The accused had been correctly convicted and sentenced for theft. An analysis of
the definition of "theft" contained in section 379 shows the following components: A person will be
guilty of the offence of theft if (1) he intends to cause a wrongful loss by unlawful means of property to
which the person gaining is not legally entitled or to which the person loosing is legally entitled, as the
case may be (see sections 23 and 24, I.P.C.); (2) the said intention to act dishonestly is in respect to
movable property; (3) the said property shall be taken out of the possession of another person without
his consent; and (4) he shall move that property in order to such taking. In the instant case, it is not
correct to say that the accused was in legal possession of the file. The file was in the Secretariat of the
Department concerned which was under the charge of the Chief Engineer. The accused was only one of
the officers working in the department; (ii) it cannot be said that the accused had not taken the file out
of the possession of the department; (iii) to commit the theft one need not take movable property
permanently out of the possession of another with the intention not to return it to him. It would satisfy
the definition if he took any movable property out of the possession of another person though he
intended to return it later on. There is wrongful loss in this case. Wrongful loss is loss by unlawful means
of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. It cannot be disputed that the appellant
unauthorisedly took the file from the office and handed it over to his friend which means he had
unlawfully taken the file from the (Page 4 of 24) department and for a short time he deprived the
Engineering Department of the possession of the file. The loss need not be caused by permanent
deprivation of the property but may be caused even by temporary dispossession, though the person
taking it intended to restore it sooner or latter. A temporary period of deprivation or dispossession of
the property of another causes loss to the other. That a person will act dishonestly if he temporarily
dispossess another of his property is clear by illustrations (b) and (1) of section 378. These illustrations
show that a temporary removal of a dog which might ultimately be returned to the owner or the
temporary taking of an article with the view to return it after receiving some reward constitutes theft,
indicating thereby that temporary deprivation of another person of his property can cause wrongful loss
to him. The case clearly falls within the four corners of section 378.