Theft

I shall recast here under the provisions of the said Section 289 of the Penal Code thus:
"Section 289:
Whoever, being a clerk or servant or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both."
The essential ingredients of the offence of theft or stealing are well set out in the case of:- Muhammed v State(2000) 12 NWLR (Pt.682) page 596 at 603 where Omage JCA held thus:
"The definition of the offence against property of theft is contained in Section 286 (1) of the Penal Code, it reads: Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves the property in order to take it is said to commit theft. From the above definition, the vital elements of the offence of theft are:
(1) Absence of the consent of the owner of the moveable property.
(2) movement of the said property.
(3) Intention to take the moveable property."

Section 314 of Penal Code states thus:
"Whoever being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."
From the wordings of the above provisions, the elements that must be proved by the prosecution in order to obtain conviction are as follows:
(i) That the accused is a clerk or a servant
(ii) That in such capacity he was entrusted with the property in question or dominion over it.
(iii) That he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such property.
See Onogwu v State (1995)6 NWLR (pt.401)276 at 291.