R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE is made to the order dated 5/07/1996 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1995, whereby permission was accorded to the Inspector, Anti-Corruption Department, Moradabad, respondent No. 2 for further investigation in case crime No. 1149 of 1994, under Section 120-B/409/420/467/471/i. P. C. read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Civil Lines, district Moradabad. ( 2 ) SHORT fact as borne out from the F. I. R. , copy whereby at Annexure 1, is that two officials of the State Police named therein embezzled Government money by creating some forged documents. On the basis of the said report aforesaid case was registered and after investigation final report was laid. Before any order was passed on such report, a protest petition was filed by the informant and simultaneously respondent No. 2 moved an application seeking permission for further investigation pursuant to the Government Order dated 1-1-1996 authorising him to investigate the case. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, who is named as one of the accused in the F. I. R. appeared and opposed the request for further investigation. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while rejecting the petitioners prayer on the ground that he has no locus standi to challenge the aforesaid two petitions, permitted respondent No. 2 to take up further investigation in terms of the provision contained in Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) PERMISSION for further investigation was sought, for on the ground that the investigating officer did not examine and record the statement of those persons to whom money was said to have been paid and that expert opinion was not obtained as to the thumb impressions which were alleged to be forged. These grounds weighed with the learned Court below to allow the prayer for further investigation. ( 4 ) INDIA has occupied a position in the list of corrupt countries. According to recognised global survey on corruption, India has been placed at No. 71 in the list of 102 countries, where No. 1 is the least corrupt and No. 102 is the most corrupt nations. Corruption like cancer, a dreaded disease which kills a person, has affected all the organs of the society. According to recognised global survey on corruption, India has been placed at No. 71 in the list of 102 countries, where No. 1 is the least corrupt and No. 102 is the most corrupt nations. Corruption like cancer, a dreaded disease which kills a person, has affected all the organs of the society. Grants received from developed countries and the loans obtained from World Bank and International Monetary Fund for social and economic development are being squandered away by corrupt means. Corruption has become a part of daily life and except a few, public in general do not oppose corruption, rather they support a corrupt public servant or a politician. A person joining politics today becomes millionaire tomorrow by resorting to corruption and successively wins election mainly by dint of money power. Similarly, if a public servant by adopting corrupt means accumulates wealth, public in general do not question about his earning by illegal means. Corruption has caused incalculable damage to our national character. Our economy and social development have been seriously affected. So, if social reforms and right thinking persons do not make sincere efforts to check corruption (if not possible to eradicate it) consequence will be disastrous which may lead to social revolution. How long a person unable to get square meal a day and young and educated unemployed youth would tolerate a person becoming richer by adopting corrupt means and accumulating major part of nations wealth ? ( 5 ) IN the present case allegation has been made against the public servants appropriating public money by corrupt means. The Court below could not have been a silent spectator and put its seal of approval to the final report submitted by the police as borne out from the impugned Order. Government took a decision for further investigation (though the learned Additional Sessions Judge has used the word reinvestigation which word is not there in Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C.) and entrusted the same to respondent No. 2, an officer of the Anti Corruption Department. Government took a decision for further investigation (though the learned Additional Sessions Judge has used the word reinvestigation which word is not there in Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C.) and entrusted the same to respondent No. 2, an officer of the Anti Corruption Department. ( 6 ) I, therefore, find no fault with the learned Additional Sessions Judge permitting respondent No. 2 to take up further investigation in order to get at the truth of the allegations made in the F. I. R. No doubt the petitioner has been named as an accused, but he does not have locus standi to raise objection to the prayer of respondent No. 2 for further investigation. It may be noted, an accused can challenge a criminal proceeding initiated on a police report only when charge sheet is filed. But so long as the case is at the stage of investigation, he cannot seek Courts interference in the manner of investigation. ( 7 ) IN the case on hand, the police submitted final report and before acceptance, permission was sought for further investigation by Anti Corruption Department and despite objection by the petitioner, the same was allowed. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2001 SCC (Cri) 1280 : (2001 All LJ 2045) that further investigation could be taken up by the same police and not by any other agency, the permission accorded to respondent No. 2 , an officer of the Anti Corruption Department is not legally sustainable. ( 8 ) THE facts of the aforesaid decision are quite distinguishable. In the said case the investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation culminated in filing final report before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption. On receipt of the final report notice was issued to the informant and after hearing him, Special Judge ordered C. B. I. to reinvestigate the matter by D. I. G. level officer. The matter was taken to High Court and order passed by the Special Judge was reversed. On receipt of the final report notice was issued to the informant and after hearing him, Special Judge ordered C. B. I. to reinvestigate the matter by D. I. G. level officer. The matter was taken to High Court and order passed by the Special Judge was reversed. The Apex Court while upsetting the order of the High Court observed that "it is not within the province of the Magistrate while exercising the power under Section 173 (8) to specify any particular officer to conduct such investigation, not even to suggest the rank of the officer who should conduct such investigation. ( 9 ) IN the present case, the Court below permitted respondent No. 2 to take up further investigation since further investigation was entrusted to him by Government Order dated 1-1-1996. Since allegation of corruption was made against the police officers named in the F. I. R. , the State Government, in my opinion, was perfectly justified in entrusting further investigation of the case to respondent No. 2, an officer of the Anti Corruption Department, so that truth would be unearthed. ( 10 ) IN view of the discussions made above, the petition having no merit, stands dismissed. Interim order dated 11-7-1996 is vacated. Petition dismissed. .