According to Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), theft is the act of taking away movable property out of the possession of another person without their consent with the dishonest intention of depriving permanently the owner of such property.

According to section 379 IPC, any individual who is convicted of theft will be punished with imprisonment that will last for three years or fine or both. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and compoundable and triable by any magistrate.

The elements or 'ingredients' of theft are specified under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Each of these elements is explained below:

1. Dishonest Intention to Take Property:
   According to this section, the person must have a dishonest intention to take movable property out of the possession of any person without their consent. This means that the individual must have the intention to take someone else's property without their permission and with the knowledge that such an act is considered dishonest.
    
2. Movable Property:
   Theft under Section 378 IPC applies to movable property, which refers to any property that can be physically moved or transferred from one place to another. This includes objects such as money, jewellery, electronic devices, vehicles, etc.
    
3. Taking Without Consent:
   It is necessary for the property to be taken out of the possession of another person without their consent. This could involve physically removing the property from someone's possession, using deception to obtain it, or exercising control over it in a way that deprives the owner of its use without their consent.
    
4. Intention to Permanently Deprive:
   The person must have the intention to take the property dishonestly and with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it. In simpler terms, they must consciously desire to keep the property for themselves or prevent the owner from ever getting it back.

These elements are essential in proving theft under Section 378 IPC in India. It is important to note that the interpretation and application of these elements may vary based on case law and judicial interpretation.

Explanations:
Here are three simple cases that demonstrate the crime of theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

1. Shoplifting:
   An individual enters a retail store and covertly puts a wallet belonging to another customer into their own bag without the owner's knowledge or permission. The person then exits the store without paying for the wallet. This act constitutes theft under Section 378 IPC as the individual has dishonestly taken movable property (the wallet) out of the possession of another person (the customer) without their consent, with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.
    
2. Purse Snatching:
   While walking down the street, a person forcefully snatches a purse from a pedestrian's shoulder and flees. The pedestrian did not give their consent for the taking of their purse, and the thief had the intention of permanently depriving them of it. This act also falls under the category of theft under Section 378 IPC as it involves the dishonest taking of movable property (the purse) without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.
    
3. Employee Theft:
   An employee working in a store systematically removes small amounts of cash from the cash register over several weeks without the employer's knowledge or permission. The employee knows that taking the money is dishonest, and they intend to keep it for themselves. Even though the money is not physically removed from the premises, the employee's actions still meet the criteria of theft under Section 378 IPC as they are dishonestly appropriating movable property (the cash) belonging to the employer without consent and with the intent to permanently deprive them of it.
    

These examples clearly illustrate various situations where theft under Section 378 IPC can take place, involving the unlawful taking of property without consent and with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it.

1. The case of R v. Larceny Ex parte Smith (1923) is a prominent example of theft in Australia. Originating in New South Wales, this case established the crucial legal principle that in order to convict someone of theft (larceny), it must be proven that they both physically took the property and intended to permanently deprive the owner of it. The court's ruling in R v. Larceny Ex parte Smith clarified that for an action to be considered larceny there must be a "dishonest appropriation" of property that belongs to another, with the specific intention of permanently depriving the rightful owner of it. This case played a significant role in shaping the definition of theft in Australian criminal law, providing a clear understanding of the essential elements needed to establish the offense of larceny.
    
2. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. K.N. Mehra, AIR 369, 1957 SCR 623, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, declared that demonstrating an intention to permanently deprive someone of their property or to gain unlawfully is not a prerequisite for proving dishonest intent. The key elements for committing theft are the lack of consent from the rightful owner of the property at the time of its removal and the presence of dishonest intent.
    
3. The court in the 2015 case of Rakesh v. State of NCT of Delhi ruled that the mere intention of an offender to dishonestly take property without the owner's consent does not constitute an offence. It was stated that the act of removing the property must take place in order for an offence to be committed, as stated in Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code.
    
4. In the 1963 case of Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, the court ruled that taking a file from an office and giving it to a non-employee for personal gain is considered theft. The length of time the file was removed from its original location is irrelevant, as long as there was dishonest intent and the item was taken without the owner's consent. This action constitutes the offence of theft.
    
5. The notable legal precedent for theft in the UK is the case of R v. Ghosh (1982), which established the essential two-part examination for determining dishonesty, a key component in proving theft under the Theft Act 1968. The test involves two inquiries: Firstly, was the defendant's conduct considered dishonest by the reasonable and honest standards of society? Secondly, did the defendant recognize that their conduct was dishonest according to these standards? This case clarified that dishonesty is evaluated through an objective standard but also necessitates a subjective aspect where the defendant must have been aware that their actions were dishonest according to ordinary standards.