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. 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. ( 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 available to him and he was in need of money he had requested P. W. 7 to refund a sum of Rs. 500/ -. P. W. 7 had sent the amount to him through P. W. 5. He denied making over of Ext. 13 to P. W. 5 on demand of illegal gratification from P. W. 1. ( 5 ) THE learned Special Judge believed the prosecution case and rejected the defence and came to hold that the appellant had received illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from P. W. 1 in order to show favour to her and so he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 6 ) THE appeal preferred by the appellant came up for hearing before my learned brother Behera, J. Arguing the case, Mr. B. M. Patnaik, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the findings of facts recorded by the learned Special Judge. The only ground taken by him was one of the want of legal and valid sanction as required under S. 6 of the Act. Mr. Patnaik urged that the first information report, statements of prosecution witnesses, seizure lists and other connected documents of the case were not placed before the sanctioning authority, the Inspector General of Police (Fire Services) (P. W. 10 ). The sanction order (Ext. 22), the draft of which was placed before him by the investigating agency along with a consolidated report and forwarding letter (Ext. 23) was signed without application of mind. In support of the contention, Mr. Patnaik cited a decision of this Court reported in ILR (1977) Cut 545, Dr. The sanction order (Ext. 22), the draft of which was placed before him by the investigating agency along with a consolidated report and forwarding letter (Ext. 23) was signed without application of mind. In support of the contention, Mr. Patnaik cited a decision of this Court reported in ILR (1977) Cut 545, Dr. Hemanta kumar Nayak v. State of Orissa, In the said decision the learned Judge held as follows :-"on the question as to whether the relevant papers were placed before the sanctioning authority and as to whether the sanctioning authority passed the sanction order after applying its mind to the materials placed before it, C. W. 1 has admitted that the file does not show that the First Information Report, the documents seized, the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and the case diary were placed before the sanctioning authority. Simply a resume of the case was furnished by the P. ands. Department in Ext. 147. The Vigilance Department did not send any case diary nor the First Information Report nor the documents seized nor the statements of witnesses recorded. P. W. 34 admits that he pointed out the discrepancy in Ext. 147, Ext. K shows that there was material discrepancy in the enquiry report as to what amount of money was actually misappropriated. P. W. 34 has also admitted that a draft sanction order was sent by the P. ands. Department along with Ext. 147. Ext. 137 is merely a verbatim copy of the said draft sent by the Vigilance Department, Apart from non-submission of materials collected during investigation of the case, the sanction order (Ext. 137) itself shows that it is a 'draft sanction order'. This fact certainly goes to show lack of application of mind by the sanctioning authority. "since the learned Judge took a view that the first information report, statements of prosecution witnesses, seizure-lists and all other connected documents including the case diary are to be placed before the sanctioning authority before a valid sanction is accorded and as there is no express provision in law nor are there judicial precedents that all such documents are to be placed before the sanctioning authority for the purpose of sanction, and further considering the importance of the question involved, my learned brother referred to matter for decision by a larger Bench and that is how the appeal came to be disposed of by us. ( 7 ) MR. Patnaik, learned counsel for the appellant, did not challenge the findings of facts and repeated his arguments contending that all material documents such as the first information report, seizure lists, statements of prosecution witnesses and the case diary having not been placed before the sanctioning authority, there was no application of mind of the sanctioning authority before according sanction for the prosecution of the appellant which strikes at the root of the prosecution case rendering it illegal and void. Mr. Patra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, urged that it is not necessary for the investigating agency to produce all these documents before the sanctioning authority. If on consideration of a consolidated report containing all allegations and material facts constituting the offence placed before him by the investigating agency, the sanctioning authority, on application of mind, is satisfied that prosecution should be launched and thereafter accords sanction for the prosecution, the order of sanction cannot be challenged. ( 8 ) THE question for consideration before us, therefore, is whether it is necessary and compulsory on the part of the investigating agency to place the first information report, seizure-lists, statements of prosecution witnesses and all other mateial documents including case diary before the sanctioning authority for obtaining a valid sanction order if such documents are not produced before him, but a consolidated report containing the allegations and material facts against the accused is produced on consideration of which sanction for prosecution is accorded, it shall be construed as an invalid sanction order. In order to formulate our opinion it is necessary to notice the decisions cited at the Bar, In AIR 1952 Orissa 220, the State v. Biswanath Naik, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the prosecution must place before the Court proof of the order granting the sanction and not proof of the fact that the sanction had been granted. Their Lordships, however, did not discuss in their judgment as to what materials constituting the offence should be placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction for the prosecution. Their Lordships, however, did not discuss in their judgment as to what materials constituting the offence should be placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction for the prosecution. In AIR 1954 SC 359 , Biswabhusan Naik v. State of Orissa, (arising out of AIR 1952 Orissa 289 (supra) it was held on the ratio of the decision reported in AIR 1948 PC 82, Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King, that it is no more necessary for the sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be in any particular form, or in writing or for it to set out the facts in respect of which it is given than it was under clause 23 of the Order. The desirability of such a course is obvious because when the facts are not set out in the sanction, proof has to be given 'aliunde' that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged, but an omission to do so is not fatal so long as the facts can be and are, proved in some other way. Relating to the case it was held that a sanction based on the facts set out in the letter, namely, the information received about the collection of heavy sums as bribes and the finding of Rs. 2,698/- in the possession of the accused would be sufficient to validate the prosecution. It is evident from this letter and from the other evidence that the facts placed before the Government could only relate to offences under S. 161 of the Penal Code and clause (a) of S. 5 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This decision, one of the earliest of the Supreme Court has so far stood as the sentinel of all decisions to come on the subject. It is significant, however, to note that it was not laid down as a general proposition that all material documents including the first information reports, seizure lists, statements of witnesses and the case diary mast be placed before the sanctioning authority before according sanction. It is significant, however, to note that it was not laid down as a general proposition that all material documents including the first information reports, seizure lists, statements of witnesses and the case diary mast be placed before the sanctioning authority before according sanction. In AIR 1954 SC 637 , Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which was also one of the earlier decisions on the subject, it was held that the burden of proving that the requisite sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution and such burden includes proof that the sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based; and these facts might appear on the face of the sanction or might be proved by extraneous evidence. In that case, however, the facts constituting the offence did not appear on the face of the order sanctioning prosecution and so it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority. But they did not attempt to do so. In the light of the above facts the order of sanction was held to be invalid. In AIR 1958 SC 124 , Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, it was observed that it should be clear from the form of sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the evidence before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, sanctioned the prosecution and, therefore, unless the matter can be proved by other evidence, in the sanction itself the fact should be referred to indicate that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In AIR 1958 SC 148 , Indu Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, the sanction order contained all the facts and materials constituting the offence and in the consideration thereof it was held that the sanction was valid. Their Lordships expressed that more facts than those already stated in the sanction could not be stated. It was not laid down as a proposition that all material documents such as referred to above must of necessity be placed before the sanctioning authority for his satisfaction before according sanction. Their Lordships expressed that more facts than those already stated in the sanction could not be stated. It was not laid down as a proposition that all material documents such as referred to above must of necessity be placed before the sanctioning authority for his satisfaction before according sanction. In 1964 (2) Cri LJ 65, Ram Sagar Pandit v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court reiterated its principles and held on the facts of the case before it that the first information report and the letter given by the Superintendent of Police to Government contained all the necessary facts to satisfy the mind of the sanctioning authority for according sanction for prosecution. Though the sanction order ex facie did not disclose the facts, the documents which were exhibited in the case gave all the necessary relevant facts constituting the offence. Therefore, the order of sanction was held to be valid. In AIR 1968 SC 1419 , Shiv Raj Singh v. Delhi Administration, Mr. Chagla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the order of sanction was bad in law as all the relevant papers and materials were not placed before the sanctioning authority. He referred to the evidence of a Sub-Inspector who stated that all the papers relating to the case were sent to the sanctioning authority because, they were in a sealed cover. The contention of Mr. Chagla was repelled and it was held that the sanction order showed on the face of it what were the facts constituting the offence charged and that a prima facie case was made out against the appellant. The sanction order recited that sanction for prosecution was given "after fully and carefully examining the material before him in regard to the aforesaid allegations" in the case and it was considered that a prima facie case was made out against the appellant. So, the order of sanction fulfilled the requirements of S. 6 of the Act. In 1971 SCD 1126, Major Som Nath v. Union of India, it was held that for a sanction to be valid it must be established that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged. In 1971 SCD 1126, Major Som Nath v. Union of India, it was held that for a sanction to be valid it must be established that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged. Though it is desirable that the facts should be referred to in the sanction itself, nonetheless if they do not appear on the face of it, the prosecution must establish aliunde by evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. In AIR 1979 SC 677 , Moh. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. It was further observed that what the court has to see is whether or not sanctioning authority at the time of giving, sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecution and must, therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. Their Lordships did not indicate as to what material documents of the case should be placed before the sanctioning authority nor such documents were categorised. On the other hand, they emphasised that if the sanction order itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction, it is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S. 6 of the Act. On the other hand, they emphasised that if the sanction order itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction, it is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S. 6 of the Act. If, however, the sanction order does not itself contain the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction, it is still open to the prosecution to adduce evidence to show that material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority and on the basis thereof satisfaction was arrived at by it. In AIR 1984 SC 684 , R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antullay, it was held that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence collected and other incidental facts before according sanction. After noticing the important judgments of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to see the decisions of some other High Courts including this Court which were cited at the Bar. In AIR 1962 Bom 205 , Parasanath Pande v. State, a Division Bench took the view that S. 6 of the Act does not enjoy the sanctioning authority to look into any particular papers. It does not lay down that the officer authorised to grant sanction must peruse the investigation papers. The sanctioning authority can proceed on any material which, according to him, is sufficient or trustworthy. He is not concerned to find out even the truth or otherwise of the facts disclosed to him. All that is necessary for the sanctioning authority to do is to apply his mind to the facts as disclosed to him and to accord sanction to the offence that would be disclosed on those facts. In 1968 Cri LJ 431 (Raj), Mithan Lal v. The State, the sanctioning authority received only a factual report from the anti-corruption department and after considering the same and on coming to the conclusion that there were grounds to believe that an offence had been committed he accorded sanction for launching prosecution. When the sanctioning authority was examined as a witness in the court he stated that he did not receive the statements of witnesses. The factual report which was the basis of the sanction order was also not exhibited in court. When the sanctioning authority was examined as a witness in the court he stated that he did not receive the statements of witnesses. The factual report which was the basis of the sanction order was also not exhibited in court. On the basis of the above facts it was held by a learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court that it is necessary for the sanctioning authority to see that the evidence discloses a prima facie case against the person sought to be prosecuted. Sanction could not be granted merely on the basis of a factual report placed by the investigating agency, but only on the analysis of the evidence collected and after satisfaction. In 1974 Cri LJ 1130, D. S. Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan, a learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court took the view that law does not provide for the placing of the investigation papers before the sanctioning authority. All that is necessary is that the facts constituting the offence must be placed before the sanctioning authority in order to obtain sanction. If the sanctioning authority feels that he is not in a position to satisfy himself as to the facts constituting the offence, it is always open to him to call for materials before taking a decision as to grant of sanction. In 1982 Cri LJ 720 (All), Deewan Chand v, State, challenging the order of sanction to be invalid it was pointed out that some seized documents and the record files were not submitted to the sanctioning authority and it was urged that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind before according sanction. This contention was repelled and it was observed by a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court that the fact by itself is not sufficient to indicate that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind, because all the facts were stated in the sanction order itself. In case he wanted to see these papers before according sanction, he could have summoned them. In case he wanted to see these papers before according sanction, he could have summoned them. In 1984 Cri LJ 1809, Behari Lal Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh, a learned Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed on consideration of the sanction order that there is nothing either in it or independent of it on the record to show as to what exactly was the material placed before the sanctioning authority on a consideration of which he accorded sanction for the prosecution. The relevant facts constituting the offence were required to be stated in the sanction order. In (1986) 2 Crimes 468 , Mohammad Rustam Qureshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and in consideration of the facts of the case before him, he observed that the facts constituting the offence were not placed before the sanctioning authority. ( 9 ) APART from the case of Dr. Hemanta Kumar Nayak, (ILR (1977) Cut 545) (supra), there are some recent decisions of this Court on the subject. In (1983) 56 Cut LT 288, Md. Sabir Hussain v. State of Orissa, my learned brother Behera, J. considered the sanction order and observed that it did not disclose as to which materials were placed before the sanctioning authority. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance was neither produced nor proved during the trial. The report of the Divisional Forest Officer referred to in the sanction order was not given for the purpose of sanction. In view of these lacunae the sanction order was held to be invalid. In (1984) 58 Cut LT 53, B. K. Kutty v. State, my learned brother Behera, J. considered the sanction order which was as brief as it could be and following the principle laid by the Supreme Court it was held that the order of sanction did not disclose as to what materials had been placed before the sanctioning authority. The investigating officer in his evidence did not state that he had placed the case diary and other materials before the sanctioning authority. The consolidated report and the investigation report were not produced and accepted as evidence in court. The investigating officer in his evidence did not state that he had placed the case diary and other materials before the sanctioning authority. The consolidated report and the investigation report were not produced and accepted as evidence in court. It was not even mentioned in the order of the sanction that the consolidated report and the investigation report prepared by the investigating officer were placed before the sanctioning authority. In such circumstances, the order of sanction was found to be invalid In (1985) 1 Orissa LR 263, Baikunthanath Mohanty v. The State of Orissa, I had considered the sanction order with reference to the prosecution evidence and I had observed that in the sanction order no reference at all was made to the oral and documentary evidence which the sanctioning authority considered before according sanction. The statements of witnesses and documents were not placed before the sanctioning authority whose duty it was to peruse and consider them in order to find out a prima facie case for according sanction. Only bare facts were stated in the sanction order. No evidence was also adduced by the prosecution to prove that all the collected materials were placed before the sanctioning authority for application of mind. Therefore, the sanction order was held to be invalid. In (1986) 1 Crimes 364 , Mruthynujaya Panda v. State of Orissa, I had considered the sanction order in which the bare facts of the prosecution case were stated with utmost brevity. The materials which the sanctioning authority considered were not referred in it. It did not disclose that he had perused the statements of witnesses and documents. The sanctioning authority was also not examined as a witness during trial to state that he had considered all the materials on record and then arrived at the satisfaction for due application of mind that there was a prima facie case against the appellant. No other Officer was also examined for the prosecution to speak about the above facts. Therefore, the order of sanction was found to be invalid. No other Officer was also examined for the prosecution to speak about the above facts. Therefore, the order of sanction was found to be invalid. In (1987) 1 Orissa LR 188, Mohammad Tafazul Rahman v. The State of Orissa, the sanction order was found to be in accordance with law because the facts stated in it gave a true picture of the prosecution case and the sanctioning authority in his evidence had stated that before according sanction he had perused the detailed investigation report sent to him by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance along with its enclosures on perusal of which he was satisfied that it was a fit case for according sanction for prosecution. ( 10 ) THESE authorities over the last three decades have settled the position of law with regard to sanction of prosecution under S. 6 of the Act. In respectful agreement with the principles, we are of the opinion that the provisions of S. 6, of the Act are of mandatory character. Therefore, the prosecution is bound to prove that valid sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority after he is satisfied that the facts stated constitute the offence. The satisfaction of the sanctioning authority can be fathomed by considering the sanction order which itself must contain all the relevant facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction before according sanction. It can also be done by adducing evidence to show that material facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and on consideration thereof sanction for launching prosecution was given. The essence of the matter is that the sanctioning authority at the time of giving sanction must be aware of the facts constituting the offence and apply his mind to the same so as to make up his mind that it is a fit case for launching prosecution and not a frivolous action. The grant of sanction, as has been observed in the case of Mohad. Iqbal Ahmed (1979 Cri LJ 633) (SC) (supra) is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosant act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must, therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. Iqbal Ahmed (1979 Cri LJ 633) (SC) (supra) is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosant act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must, therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. But it cannot be stated as a broad proposition of law that the investigating agency inust necessarily place the first information report, seizure lists, statements of prosecution witnesses and all other material documents including case diary before the sanctioning authority for obtaining a valid sanction order and if such documents are not produced before him, the sanction order must necessarily be construed to be invalid in contravention of S. 6 of the Act. On the other hand, if a consolidated report containing the allegations and all material facts including statements of prosecution witnesses and details of documents and the investigation report are placed before the sanctioning authority and on application of mind he finds that the facts contained therein constitute an offence and thereafter he accords sanction, such order of sanction will be unexceptionable and valid in the eye of law. If on consideration of such materials as referred to above, the sanctioning authority will not be satisfied so as to find out a prima facie case constituting the offence, he shall be free to call for other documents such as first information report, seizure list, statement of prosecution witnesses and other documents and materials from the investigating agency for consideration and satisfaction before according sanction. Application of these principles will depend on the facts of each particular case and the facts of each case have to be considered so as to find out if the order of sanction is valid or not. The law has not prescribed any circumscribed limit nor can each and every case be put into strait jacket. ( 11 ) NOW coming to the facts of the case and as its fate depends on construction of the sanction order (Ext. 22) we consider it worthwhile to reproduce it. "whereas it is alleged that Sri Bhagabat Nath, Ex-Station Officer, Jeypore Fire Station in the district of Koraput during his incumbency as such between 5-7-1975 to 13-9-1978 initiated correspondence with Smt. Indumati Nayak w/o. late Manoj Kumar Nayak Prop, of M. K. Enterprisers, Jeypore, Dist. 22) we consider it worthwhile to reproduce it. "whereas it is alleged that Sri Bhagabat Nath, Ex-Station Officer, Jeypore Fire Station in the district of Koraput during his incumbency as such between 5-7-1975 to 13-9-1978 initiated correspondence with Smt. Indumati Nayak w/o. late Manoj Kumar Nayak Prop, of M. K. Enterprisers, Jeypore, Dist. Koraput for the inspection of the half constructed Cinema hall known as M. K. Theatres situated at Jeypore on 8-8-1978 for the purpose of recommending the requirements of the fire fighting equipments to be installed in the Cinema hall. Although Smt. Indumati Nayak was not at all interested and after persisting telephone calls to Smt. Nayak, the said Sri Bhagbat Nath inspected the aforesaid Cinema hall on 18-8-78. Thereafter the said Sri Bhagabat Nath wanted to give a list of Fire fighting equipments to be installed in the said Cinema hall and asked the said Smt. Indumati Nayak to take the same from his office by herself or by deputing some reliable person. Accordingly, the said Smt. Nayak deputed Sri R. N. Behera a close friend of her late husband on 21-8-78 to the said Sri Bhagabat Nath, Station Officer, Jeypore Fire Station for the purpose but instead handing over the list to the said Sri R. N. Behera, the Station Officer Sri Nath demanded Rs. 500/- for delivery of the said paper containing the list of fire fighting equipment and expressed that unless the money was paid the construction work of the said Cinema Hall will be suspended. Further, the said Sri Bhagabat Nath repeatedly telephoned to the said Smt. Indumati Nayak demanding the payment of the said amount of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred ). Finding no other alternative the said Smt. Indumati Nayak filed a written complaint before the unit D. S. P. Vigilance, Jeypore on 26-8-78 and to send her servant Sri Trinath Patra with the amount of Rs. 500/- for taking suitable action in the matter, while intimating the said Bhagabat Nath, on telephone that she was sending the demanded amount through her servant the said Trinath Patra On receipt of the complaint a trap was arranged. The trap party consisted of two O. A. S. Officers (including a Revenue Officer of Jeypore) and Vigilance Officers and witnesses and on 26-8-78 on demand and acceptance of Rs. The trap party consisted of two O. A. S. Officers (including a Revenue Officer of Jeypore) and Vigilance Officers and witnesses and on 26-8-78 on demand and acceptance of Rs. 500/- of illegal gratification from the said Sri Trinath Patra, the trap party recovered the entire bribe amount of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) consisting of five one hundred rupee G. C. Notes which were accepted by the said Sri Bhagabat Nath and kept in his personal Diary Book. The numbers of the tainted G. C. Notes tallied with those noted in the preparation report and the finger wash of Sri Bhagabat Nath with sodium carbon a solution turned pink as the tainted G. C. Notes have been treated with phenolphthalein powder before the decoy carried the sameme for payment. " whereas the said acts of Shri Bhagabat Nath constitute offences punishable under S. 5 (2), P. C. Act (Act II of 1947) read with S. 5 (1) (d), P. C. Act/161, I. P. C. And whereas I Shri Durga Madhab Misra, I. P. S. Inspector-General of Police, Fire Service and Home Guards Orissa, Cuttack being the authority competent to remove the said Sri Bhagabat Nath after fully and carefully examining the material and the consolidated report of investigation placed before me in regard to the allegations and circumstances of the case consider that the said Sri Bhagabat Nath should be prosecuted in a Court of law for the said offence. (c) Now, therefore, I do hereby accord sanction under S. 6 (1) (c) P. C. Act (Act II of 1947) for the prosecution of the said Sri Bhagabat Nath for the offences and any other offences punishable under other provisions of law in respect of the Acts aforeasid and for taking of cognisance of the said offences by a Court of competent jurisdiction. " the sanction order shows that the entire facts, of the prosecution case have been stated in detail. Particular mention has been made about the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant from P. W. 1 It was stated that P. W. 1 submitted first information report on the basis of which a raid was arranged in the presence of an Executive Magistrate and other independent witnesses. The sum of Rs. 500/- was handed over by P. W. 5 to the appellant and soon thereafter the raiding party seized the amount and tested the currency notes. The sum of Rs. 500/- was handed over by P. W. 5 to the appellant and soon thereafter the raiding party seized the amount and tested the currency notes. In the penultimate paragraph it was stated that after fully and carefully examining the material and the consolidated report of the investigation placed before him with regard to the allegations and taking into consideration the circumstance of the case, the sanction authority (P. W. 10) considered that prosecution should be launched against the appellant and accordingly he gave sanction. It is significant to note that the names of the important witnesses and the part played by them was stated in the sanction order. In addition the sanctioning authority (P. W. 10) who was the Inspector-General of Police, Fire Services, stated in his evidence that before passing the sanction order he received a letter (Ext. 23) from the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance along with a consolidated report of investigation. He perused the consolidated investigation report and was satisfied that there was a prima facie case for lauching prosecution against the appellant. A glance at the consolidation report which contains all the facts of the case in great detail including the statements of witnesses will leave no room for doubt that it was alone sufficient to give satisfaction to the sanctioning authority for according sanction for prosecution. When full material particulars constituting the offence in the shape of a consolidated investigation report were before the sanctioning authority, in our view it was not necessary for the investigating agency to produce the first information report, seizure lists, statements of prosecution witnesses and the case diary. If in a fool-proof case like this the order of sanction would be held to be invalid as contended by Mr. Patnaik, a better case can never be found. We conclude and hold that the order of sanction (Ext. 22) was legal and valid and the prosecution did not contravene the provisions of S. 6 of the Act. ( 12 ) IN the result, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. ( 13 ) B. K. BEHERA, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed. .