Dismissal of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner herein is under challenge in this revision.

2. The petitioner filed complaint under Section 200 CLP.C against respondents 1 to 12 herein for the offences under Sections 277, 268, 425 of IPC and Section 23(3) read with Section 35(1)(2) of Walta Act, 2002 and under Sections 107,116 of IPC read with 144(2) and 133 of CLP.C.

3. The averments, in brief, are:-

Hussain Shavali constructed Tank Bund during 1562 A.D. It became a bridge joining Hyderabad and Secunderabad. It provided drinking water to Hyderabad city up to 1955. The total extent of lake was 1,356 acres and out of it 290 acres have been encroached and thereby, the total extent of tank bund has been reduced from 1,356 to 1,066 acres. Every year Ganesh Idols are being immersed in the tank during Ganesh Navaratri festival. The depth of the tank has been reduced from 65 feet to 40 feet. Around 30 thousand idols are being immersed during Ganesh Navaratri festival every year. Number of idols that are immersed is being increased from year to year. On account of immersion, not less than 500 lorries load wastages have been depositing in the tank. 7500 tones of plaster of paris, 200 tones of iron pieces, 75 tones of wooden planks and more than 10,000 litres of synthetic paints, coir etc are being immersed in the form of idols. Only 10 to 15% of debris have been removed from the lake.

4. The Central Government included Hussain Sagar in the list of National Lakes Protection Scheme. For purification of Hussain Sagar, State Government obtained Rs. 320 crores loan from Japan Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC). The authorities are not taking proper steps for removal of the debris from the tank and therefore, they are liable for prosecution for the offences under Sections 277, 268,455 IPC.

5. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. After considering the sworn statement and the contents of the complaint, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., by order dated 18.6.2010, on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable for want of sanction as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The said order is assailed in this revision.

6. Heard Mamidi Venu Madhav, petitioner-party-in-person, and perused the material brought on record.

7. The petitioner contends that once the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, it constitutes taking cognizance of the offences and in which case, dismissal of the complaint does not arise. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Visva Cement Products v. Karnatka State Financial Corporation, Gadag (1) 1998 ALT (Crl.) 176. In the cited case, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and considered the material brought on record and took cognizance of the offence. The cited decision does not help the petitioner. What is held in the cited decision is that application of judicial mind before taking cognizance of the offence is essential. Para (2) of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:-

"2. As far as the 1st contention of the petitioner that the Magistrate has not taken cognizance but proceeded to record the sworn statement and hence it is illegal, is unsustainable in view of the decisions rendered by their Lordships in AIR 1996 5C 204: (1994 Cri LJ 408) : AIR 1972 5C 2639: AIR 1976 5C 1672: (1976 Cri LJ 1361) and ILR 1994 KANT2991 : (1994CrLL.J 3115), wherein it is held that cognizance is deemed to have been taken when the Magistrate applied his judicial mind for proceeding under 5.200 and this position has been explained in the decisions referred to above. In this case, the Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the witnesses and after being satisfied he had directed to issue process to the accused persons. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the Magistrate has taken cognizance i