JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

By this revision application, the applicant has challenged order dated 12/07/2018, passed by the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, whereby an application for discharge (Exh.4) filed on behalf of the applicant was rejected.

2. The applicant herein was accused of having committed offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as per FIR dated 21/07/2015, registered against her and another accused person. The complainant in the present case was an employee of a school in which the applicant was working as Head Mistress. The allegation against the applicant was that she had directed the complainant, who was an incharge class teacher in the school, to collect Rs.700/- from each student towards fees for the academic session, although it was a girls school and the students were not required to pay any amount towards fees, as per the policy of the Government. The school in question being a fully aided school, such amount towards fees was not required to be collected.

3. As per the oral report, leading to registration of FIR, out of 97 students, 74 students deposited the amount while the remaining 23 students could not do so and the applicant insisted upon the complainant to collect such amount, threatening that disciplinary action would be taken against him if there was failure to collect such amount towards fees.

4. It is the case of the complainant that since he found that demand of such amount towards fees from the girl students was illegal, he approached the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau, who laid a trap against the accused persons. The trap was arranged on 21/07/2015 and when the complainant went with the tainted notes, on directions given by the applicant, he was required to go to the Accountant for depositing the amount. According to the complainant, when he went to the Accountant, he found that the Accountant was not available and, therefore, he handed over the amount to the other accused person, a Junior Clerk in the school. Upon such amount being handed over to other accused person, the procedure of phenolphthalein test was undertaken and, according to the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau, the trap was successful because the said Junior Clerk had accepted the amount on the directions of the applicant. On this basis, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the applicant and the said Junior Clerk.

5. Investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed. At this stage, the applicant filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that sanction obtained by the prosecution from the Director of Education to proceed against the applicant was defective, as the Director of Education was not the authority who had employed the applicant and said authority did not have power to remove her from the post of Headmistress. It was also submitted on behalf of the applicant that there was nothing to show that she had demanded any amount towards gratification and, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution did not raise any suspicion against her, much less any grave suspicion. The prosecution filed its say in response to the said application and opposed it.

6. By impugned order dated 12/07/2018, the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, rejected the application for discharge, holding that the Director of Education was having authority to remove the applicant from her post and that, therefore, it could not be said that the sanction was defective. It was further held that the material on record was sufficient to proceed against the applicant and that it was not a case where it could be said that the demand made by the applicant and its acceptance by other accused person was not illegal gratification.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has approached this Court by filing the instant revision application. This Court had granted stay of further proceedings before the Court below durin