JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This revision petition has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 04.12.2017 whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi has directed the Investigating Officer to procure the call detail records and location via mobile towers of all members of the raiding team and also of the secret informer and himself. The Investigating Officer was also directed to procure the mobile phone of the accused from the malkhana.

2. It is the contention of the State that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the said order amounts to interference in the investigation process and the accused does not have any right to have the information about how the investigation is progressing as the accused is not entitled to call records. It is also submitted by the State that the documents sought to be produced have not been a part of the charge-sheet and details of the personal information of the Investigating Officer of the case would amount to the intrusion on the privacy of the Investigating Officer. It is also stated that apart from information regarding this case, details of other cases would also be there in the mobile of the Investigating Officer which the accused is not entitled to see.

3. Heard Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP appearing for the State and Mr. Sumer Kumar Sethi, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Under Section 91 CrPC, whenever any court considers production of any document or any other thing necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, then the court can issue summons to the person, in whose possession such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to produce it in the court.

5. The power of the Magistrate under Section 91 CrPC to call for the call records of the Investigating Officer has been discussed in Attar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi),2016 SCCOnLineDel 3907 wherein this Court upheld the order of the trial court directing the production of call records of the Investigating Officer. All contentions raised in this case were taken by the prosecution there also and they were rejected on the facts of the case.

6. This Court in its judgment dated 05.11.2019 in Crl.M.C. 3161/2019 titled as Narcotics Control Bureau v. Gaurav Kumar has observed as under:

"6. On perusal of the aforesaid provision of law, it is clear that whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a Police Station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring hint to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

7. The similar issue came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India, (2015) 3 JCC 121 (Narcotics) whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"8. All that we are concerned with is whether call details which the appellant is demanding can be denied to him on the ground that such details are likely to prejudice the case of the prosecution by exposing their activities in relation to similar other cases and individuals. It is not however in dispute that the call details are being summoned only for purposes of determining the exact location of the officers concerned at the time of the alleged arrest of the appellant from Yashica Palace hotel near the bus stand. Ms. Makhija made a candid concession that any other information contained in the call details will be of no use to the appellant and that the appellant would not insist upon disclosure of such information. That in our opinion simplifies the matter in as much as while the call details demanded by the appellant can be summoned in terms of Section 65