In People v. Swinney (1975) 46 Cal. App. 3d 332, the crime was grand theft. The property taken was some bonds. Loss is not an element of grand theft (see 484, 487). The Swinney court explained that mere knowledge of the fact that the bonds were missing may not be sufficient to constitute discovery of a theft, such as in a situation in which the bonds might reasonably be believed to have been accidentally thrown away. Thus discovery of the theft required "awareness that the loss was caused by criminal means." (46 Cal. App. 3d at p. 345.) The Court held that "statutory objective, as well as syntax, impels an interpretation of 'discovery' which calls for awareness of the crime, not merely the loss." ( Id. at pp. 342-343.) In Swinney a 1974 indictment alleged that some bonds were taken in 1968 but that "'said theft was not discovered until on or about December 15, 1972.'" ( Id. at p. 335.) Thus, an awareness in 1968 that bonds were missing was not necessarily a discovery of a theft. If the prosecution could show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the facts pertaining to the theft of the bonds were not discovered until 1972, this would be sufficient to show a 1972 discovery of the theft. Swinney also addressed the question of who discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the crime. According to Swinney the exercise of reasonable diligence is required not only by law enforcement but by the victim as well. Sweeney's recommended instruction (on which CALJIC No. 4.74 is largely based) states in part "you may not ... convict the defendant of grand theft if you find that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence on the part of the injured person or the criminal law enforcement authorities, the theft should have been discovered at a time more than three years before" the date of commission of the crime. ( People v. Swinney, supra, 46 Cal. App. 3d at p. 345.) In Swinney the court stated: "Whether the owner of the bonds should have discovered a crime then at the time of learning of the bonds' disappearance or thereafter; the date on which the owner actually discovered the theft; whether, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the owner could have discovered the crime earlier -- these are questions for the trial jury ...." ( People v. Swinney, supra, 46 Cal. App. 3d at p. 344.)