The requirement of placing all material documents before the sanctioning authority for obtaining a valid sanction order under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not mandatory. A consolidated report containing the allegations and material facts, including statements of prosecution witnesses and details of documents, is sufficient for the sanctioning authority to apply his mind and accord sanction.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur convicting him for an offence under S. 161 of the Penal Code ('i. P. C. ' for short) and under S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for each of the offences.

( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is stated in brief, P. W. 1 informant Indumati Naik is the widow of Manojkumar Naik who had two flourishing shops named Universal Radio and M. K. Eleetricals in Jeypore town. He had also started construction of a cinema hall named M. K. Theatres. After his death, on 18-5-1978, P. W. 1 took over the assets of M. K. Electricals and the cinema hall, while her nephew (P. W. 7) took over management of the shop named, Universal Radio. P. W. 5 Trinath Patra was serving as the salesman under P. W. 1.

( 3 ) IN the year 1978, the appellant was the Fire Officer of Jeypore Fire Station. He inspected the half constructed cinema hall on 18-8-1978 in order to see the fire preventive measures and on 21-8-1978 intimated P. W. 1 over phone to collect the certificate either personally or through a reliable person. P. W. 1 requested P. W. 2, her God father, to meet the appellant and collect the certificate. When P. W. 2 met the appellant, the latter demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-for handing over the certificate. P. W. 2 returned empty handed and intimated the fact of demand of illegal gratification to P. W. 1. On 25-8-1978 the appellant told P. W. 1 over phone to take the certificate or eke he would submit the same to the Collector in which case, licence for construction of the cinema hall would stand cancelled. On receiving this information which was a veiled threat P. W. 1 agreed to pay him a sum of Rs. 500/ -. On 26-8-1978 she decided to report the matter to the Vigilance Police and wrote an application (Ext. 3) which was subsequently treated as F. I. R. and sent it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Jeypore (P. W. 6) through his salesman (P. W. 5) along with one Ashok Sahu (since dead ). On receipt of Ext. 3, P. W. 6 directed an Inspector of Police, Vigilance (P. W. 9) to make necessary arrangements for a trap. Accordingly, a trap was arranged, the services of an Executive Magistrate

(P. W. 4) was requisitioned, five G. C. notes each of the denomination of Rs. 100/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder, witnesses to the trap were arranged, preparation report (Ext. 1) was written and at about 1. 30 p. m. the raiding party proceeded towards the office of the appellant. P. W. 5 took the currency notes and went inside the office room of the appellant along with Ashok Sahu. The appellant who was alone, asked P. W. 5 whether he had brought the amount. P. W. 5 answered in the affirmative and handed over the sum of Rs. 500/- to the appellant who kept the same inside a diary and placed it on his office table. He gave Ext. 13 to P. W. 5 and talked over telephone to P. W. 1 telling her that he had received the sum of Rs. 500/- sent by her and made over the certificate. In the meanwhile Ashok Sahu went outside and gave the pre-arranged signal. The raiding party entered inside the office room of the appellant and seized the sum of Rs. 500/- in G. C. notes as well as the certificate (Ext. 13) by seizure list (Ext. 14) and prepared the detection report (Ext. 12 ). The numbers of the G. C. notes were compared and after close of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant.

( 4 ) THE appellant admitted that he had received the sum of Rs. 500/- from P. W. 1 on the date and at the time of the occurrence, but took the defence that he had earlier given advance of Rs. 600/- to P. W. 7 in instalments to purchase a radio set, but as the radio set was not made availab