How does it differ from theft, extortion and dacoity?

Definition (the Code's scheme): the dishonest taking of movable property out of another's possession without that person's consent. The elements: Movable property — immovables (land) cannot be stolen as theft (illegal land-taking runs through encroachment and land law); but things attached to land become movable when severed (the tree cut to be carried away); Property of another / in another's possession — the possession-protection point: even the owner who takes back his own property from a bailee may commit theft against the possessor's better right in defined analyses (the honest-claim-of-right negation); Dishonest intention (mens rea) at the taking — the intention to cause wrongful gain to oneself or wrongful loss to another; the taking-to-use-and-return cases (the servant taking the cycle at night, returning at dawn) test the boundary: dishonesty assessed at the taking moment; the bona fide mistake (taking one's own-looking umbrella) negates it; Taking/moving (actus) — the slightest movement suffices once the taking begins (the removal's commencement, not completion, is the actus); Without consent — express or implied consent defeats theft (the shopkeeper's display is an implied invitation, not consent to keep). Aggravated forms (the Code's grading): theft in a dwelling house; by a clerk/servant of property entrusted by the employer; after preparation to cause death or hurt (the armed thief); of means of transport; repeat offending; value-based grading…