ORDER :

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The above case is placed before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Basheer K. v. C.K. Usman Koya [2021 (2) KHC 432 (DB)] held that a reference by a learned Single Judge is not of a question, but the case itself. In such circumstances, we heard the issue, which was the subject of reference and the case on merits.

2. Sri. Nireesh Mathew, learned Counsel, appeared for the petitioner and Sri. S.U. Nazar, learned Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State. Respondents 2 & 4 were represented by the respective Standing Counsel.

3. On facts, the petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.5 of 2020 of Attingal Excise Circle Office, pending before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner filed an application as produced at Annexure-A, seeking directions to respondents 2 & 4 to produce the details regarding the name of the subscriber and the tower location of two mobile numbers respectively said to be used by Circle Inspectors of Excise, Attingal, Varkala and Excise Range Inspector of Kilimanoor. From the 4th respondent, details were sought of the mobile used by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, by Annexure-B order, rejected the prayer relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge in [Nimith C. v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KHC 771)]. The petitioner filed the Crl.M.C. against the said order pointing out that the seizure of contraband and arrest alleged to have been made in the crime is fictitious, which would be proved by the tower location of the mobile numbers used by the Officers.

4. On the brief facts, regarding the crime registered, the C.I. of Excise, Attingal on 22.08.2020 at about 4.50 pm came to the house of the 1st accused on information received of cannabis being stashed away in his house. On approaching the house two vehicles were seen exiting, which were waylaid. The two vehicles were driven by A1 & A2, from inside of which cannabis was recovered. Subsequently, on a search of the house, cannabis was found stashed away inside an almirah. On information received on the interrogation of A1 & A2, the Officers came to the restaurant of A4, in front of which a lorry was parked. A4, who was sitting inside the lorry, ran away. On searching the lorry, again cannabis was recovered. Inside the restaurant, A3, the petitioner herein was handling two gunny bags, which contained larger quantities of cannabis. A total of about 40Kg. of cannabis was recovered, based on which crime was registered. The mobile numbers, details of which are sought for, are of the officials of the Excise Department, who carried out the raid.

5. Sri. Nireesh Mathew points out that the decision relied on by the Magistrate is concerning disclosure of call details in the official mobile phone, which was declined due to its confidential nature. The petitioner herein does not seek the call details and only request the subscriber name and the tower location, so as to convince the Court about the falsity of the allegation levelled, of seizure and arrest. Learned Counsel would also rely on two decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court; Crl.M.C.4586 of 2017 dated 31.08.2017 [Akhil Raj v. State of Kerala] and Crl.M.C.No.685 of 2019 dated 01.02.2019 Antony v. State of Kerala, wherein call details of officials were allowed to be called for. It is pointed out that the earlier order was passed by the very same learned Single Judge, who referred the matter for an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench. The reference also is on the question whether the call details of police officers can be furnished to the accused since the details of informants would be leaked to the accused jeopardizing prevention and detection of crimes. The reference order was on a misapprehension that the petitioner had sought for call details. Sri. Nireesh Mathew asserts that no call details are requested by the petitioner and he requires only the subscriber name and the