theft, it is the submission that to prove the offence of theft the prosecution is expected to prove the following ingredients: 1. Intention of the accused person to take the movable property. 2. The moving of the property being dishonest; and 3. Absence of consent at the time of moving the property. See MOHAMMED v STATE (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt 682) 596 at 603 – 604 Para G – A. In the instant case, it is in evidence that Exhibit A, B, C and G being the property stolen were moved dishonestly by the accused with his co-conspirators now at large without the consent of Mohammed Abubakar (the owner). It is also in evidence that the intention of taking the said Exhibits A, B, C and G was to deprive the owner of the value of the said property; this intention was manifestly carried out on the 3rd, 6th, 7th and 17th Days of March, 2006 where the owner of Exhibits A, B, C and G was deprived of the value therein. It is further submitted that from the accused extra judicial statements and that of his co-conspirators admitted in evidence as Exhibit H1, I, K, L and M detailing what the accused did is a confession to the crime of theft. See NWACHUKWU v STATE (2008) 3 NCC 100 at 135. From the foregoing, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person as regards Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 dealing with the offence of theft. 17