Ambrose J:

In this case the appellant, who was a chemical mixer employed by the Singapore Glass Manufacturers Co. Ltd, was charged with theft of property in the possession of his employer under s. 381 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on 15 October 1962, at about 7.45 p.m. at the Company's premises at Henderson Road, Singapore, he committed theft in respect of two dozen drinking glasses valued at $2 in the possession of the Company. He was convicted by the trial Magistrate and sentenced to one day's imprisonment and a fine of $300.

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that, though the Magistrate found that the two dozen glasses were removed by him from the store on the ground floor of the Company's premises to a box on the first floor, it was not proved that they had been removed out of the possession of the Company. I concede that to constitute theft there must be an intention to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of another person without that person's consent. But in my judgment, it is sufficient if the person who has formed such dishonest intention moves that property in order to such taking; and it is not necessary for him to move that property out of the possession of the other person. This is clear from s. 378 of the Penal Code which reads:

Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

I accordingly find no substance in the first submission.

The second submission was that the act of the appellant amounted merely to preparation and not even to an attempt to commit theft. I find no substance in this point. The requisite dishonest intention was established beyond reasonable doubt. The offence of theft was committed as soon as the accused moved the property in order to the dishonest taking. This is clear from s. 378.

For these reasons I dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence.

Appeal dismissed.