ORDER :

1. Inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are invoked by the prosecution challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 07.10.2021 vide Annexure P/4 whereby an application u/S 91 Cr.P.C. for production of call details of conversation which took place through the mobile of the complainant Ankit Mishra, Rajesh Khede, R.K. Nagaich and Anand Kumar during certain period, was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission as well as final disposal.

CONTENTIONS

3. The first and foremost ground raised by the petitioner-prosecution is that the accused who had successfully invoked Section 91 before the trial Court had no right to do so for the reason that Section 91 is not meant for the benefit of the accused and also that the said cannot be invoked during pendency of investigation. In support, learned counsel for the prosecution had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568 (Para 25) and in the case of Nitya Dharmananda vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, 2018 (2) SCC 93 (Para 8).

3.1 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent accused supporting the