JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

The instant Criminal Revision Petition is barred by 44 days and is supported by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. For the reasons stated and grounds mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed and the delay of 44 days in filing the instant revision is condoned.

3. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr. P.C. challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Session Case No. 89/2021 whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 91 of CrPC praying for procuring Call Data Record/Call Details for the period of six months prior to August, 2021 pertaining to the two mobile numbers allegedly being used by the prosecutrix was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and that he was roped in the matter based on false allegations. He was in a consensual relationship with the prosecutrix of the case and they used to communicate frequently with each other, however, the prosecutrix has denied the same during her cross-examination in the trial. She has further stated in her cross-examination that her husband has been using the mobile number 70237-13441 from the beginning and that on the day of the incident as well, the SIM pertaining to the mobile number 70237-13441 was with her. husband who has gone to Bangalore to work as labour and lives there. The CDR of the phone numbers being used by the prosecutrix needs to be procured to prove that the phone was indeed being used by the prosecutrix and that she had made calls to the petitioner thereby proving her consent.

5. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned judge below is not based on sound reasoning and the valuable right of the petitioner under Section 91 of CrPC has been curtailed by the said order.

6. Learned AGA vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned judge below passed the order dated 19.11.2022 after due consideration and based on cogent reasons, thus, the same does not warrant interference by this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA. Perused the material available on record.

8. The submission made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that the CDR is required to prove that the relationship of the petitioner and the prosecutrix was consensual seems to be worth considering.

9. The Call Data Record contains the number of the tower from which the user received network while making a certain call. The location of the tower is found based on the tower number and the same is used to establish the location of the user. Since the prosecutrix has explicitly stated in her cross-examination that the said mobile number was not being used by her but by her husband and it is the case of the defence that the prosecutrix used to talk to the petitioner using the said mobile number and that her husband resides in Bangalore and was working there when the incident took place, then the tower location pertaining to the said mobile number would reveal the truth and make it certain whether the contention of the petitioner is true or not and whether the relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was consensual or not. The purpose of trial is to ascertain/discover the truth of the matter while balancing and protecting the rights of the victim, the rights of