ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arise out of an order dated 28.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore whereby Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2014 filed by the appellant against an order dated 24.12.2013 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Indore has been dismissed.

3. The appellant is being prosecuted before the Special Judge, NDPS, Indore for offences punishable under Sections 8, 21, 22, 29 read with 8(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution case it appears is that the appellant was nabbed in front of Yashica Palace hotel near Gangwal bus stand at Indore between 1800 and 1900 hrs. on 24.02.2013 by the Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau carrying 610 gms of heroin and 40 gms. of Alprazolum in a bag which was seized by the Officer effecting the arrest. A mobile phone Sim No. 90395020407 was also according to the prosecution, seized from the possession of the appellant. While the trial has yet to commence on the charge sheet filed against the appellant, an application was filed on his behalf before the Special Judge, NDPS, Indore praying for a direction summoning call details that would indicate the locations of three different mobile telephone numbers mentioned in paras 3 and 5 of the said application. Out of there number one of the mobile phones admittedly belongs to the appellant-accused while the other two telephone numbers bearing Sim No. 9165077714 issued by the Airtel Company and Sim No. 7145593902 issued by the Tata Docomo Company are said to be of the Officers who are alleged to have arrested the appellant on the date, time and place, mentioned above. The appellant's case before the Trial Court and so also before the High Court was that the prosecution story that he was arrested from near about the hotel, mentioned above, was factually incorrect which fact could according to the appellant be proved by the call details of the mobile numbers held by the officers who are alleged to have arrested the appellant. The appellant contended that the telephone numbers of the Officer effecting the arrest and making the seizure would show that the officers concerned were at some other locations during the time the appellant's arrest and resultant seizures are alleged to have been made. The Trial Court and the High Court have declined that prayer as noticed above.

4. We have heard Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned ASG for the respondent-UOI. Ms. Makhija contended that the call details which the appellant seeks to summon under the orders of the court will be extremely vital for proving that the appellant was not arrested at the time and place alleged by the prosecution. The fact that the Officers who effected the arrest were during the relevant period at different locations would clearly belie the prosecution case in that regard. Inasmuch as the trial court and the High Court declined to summon the call details the orders passed by them have the effect of denying to the appellant the opportunity to prove his innocence thereby causing prejudice to him in his defence.

5. On behalf of the respondent it was argued by Mr. Luthra that while call details were admissible in terms of Section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act subject to fulfilment of the requirements stipulated in the said provision such details are likely to prejudice the prosecution and in particular the Narcotic Control Bureau inasmuch as the details being summoned would not only indicate the location of the officers concerned but also bring other information into public domain. This would according to Mr. Luthra hamper investigation sand may result in exposing sources of information. Once exposed the sources may according to the learned counsel completely dry up to the prejudice of the Bureau. It was submitted that the like by prejudice which the respondents apprehend is a good enough reason for this Court to decline the prayer made by the appellant.

6. Insofar as