JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner/State is aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.1015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad below application Exhibit-4 in Special Case No. 53 of 2014.

3. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned order primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the application Exhibit-4 sets out vague and ambiguous pleadings and secondly, the impugned order is a cryptic order and that no reasons are assigned while passing the said order.

4. The learned APP submits that merely because the accused filed an application seeking a direction to the cellular services provider to preserve the record with regard to the cellular phones, the trial Court has passed the order and particularly when the two cellular phones have no concern with the proceedings. Such an order should be passed for justifiable reasons.

5. He further submits that any application inviting a Judicial order ought to set out the purpose for which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked and justify the prayer made. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash Sharma Vs. CBI, Delhi, (2000) 5 SCC 679: [2000] 3 Supreme 745 / [2000] 2 Crimes (SC) 276. He has specifically relied on paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the said judgment.

6. Learned APP further submits that the application Exhibit-4 has been filed not for merely seeking the preservation of CDR and SDR records, but aimed at exerting pressure on the Investigating Officer for self-serving purposes. The intention of the accused in seeking such an order is to exert pressure on the Investigating Officer by holding out a threat that the record is likely to reveal objectionable material. The learned APP, therefore, submits that such applications need to be rejected in order to avoid an oblique motive of the accused being achieved.

7. Mr. Ghanekar learned Advocate for the respondent submits that there is no oblique motive behind moving application Exhibit-4. He submits that the respondent/accused has gathered information that the complainant and the Investigating Officer were hand in gloves and it was for a considerable duration that they were in touch with each other on two cellular phones maintained by each of them whose numbers are mentioned in the prayer clause ‘B’ of Exhibit-4. He further submits that the CDR/SDR record would reveal certain conversation between the complainant and the Investigating Officer and that would support the case of the respondent/accused, who is said to be apprehended in an anti corruption case.

8. He further submits that the accused is not required to disclose his defence at a primary stage in the matter. The CDR is such record which is normally maintained by the cellular services for a period of about one year. After the said period, the record is normally destroyed. The preservation of Call Detail Records (CDR) (CDR) and the Subscriber Detail Records (SDR) would enable the material evidence coming before the Court.

9. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari & ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2014 ALL MR (Criminal) 5055 to support his contention that the CDR is required to be preserved if it would eventually bring the truth before the Court.

10. He further submits that application Exhibit-4 had put forth two fold prayers. Firstly, that the CDR and SDR along with tower location was to be preserved and secondly, the said record was to be produced before the Court. By the impugned order, the learned Court has only directed preservation of the CDR and SDR and tower location and has not yet considered the prayer for production of the said record.

11. He, therefore, submits that in the subsequent stages in the matter, he may move an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for producin