The court established that call data records are admissible for preserving fairness in trial, but privacy rights of unrelated parties must be respected.

O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in CR No.96/2022 registered at the Excise Range Office, Chittur alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 55 (a) read with Section 67-B and 55-D of the Kerala Abkari Act . The prosecution version is that, at about 22 hours on 12/10/2022, the Excise officials seized 2197 litres of spirit from a Bolero Pick up van parked near the main gate of Agricultural Marketing Society, Chittur, on the Kozhinjampara-Nadupini-RV Puthur Road. The petitioners assert that they were not arrested from the place stated by the prosecution, but were apprehended and taken into custody from L&T Road, Coimbatore, by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Excise Intelligence & Investigation Bureau, South Zone, Thiruvananathapuram. According to the petitioners, after taking into custody, they were taken to the place stated by the prosecution, through various pocket roads and after crossing Gopalapuram Check Post.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the falsity of the prosecution case will come to light if the tower location details and Call Data Records of the mobile phones of the detecting officer, the petitioners and the wife of the second accused are produced and verified. It is submitted that the detecting officer had made a call to the phone number of the second accused's wife at the time when the petitioners were taken into custody. Unless the tele-communication service providers are directed to preserve the tower location and CDR, the details will be destroyed after a particular point of time.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for preserving the tower location and CDR. It is also submitted that under no circumstance can there be a direction to preserve the tower location details of the wife of the second petitioner since she is not a party to this proceeding. Further, production of CDR and other details of the detecting officer may result in the details of their crimes being revealed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that CDR/Data with respect to the mobile No.9747559817 is available only for the date on 12/10/2022 and no calls were made to that number or no calls had originated from that number, on 13/12/2022.

5. Heard, learned Counsel appearing for the other respondents also.

6. I find substance in the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor against the preservation and production of CDR and tower location details of the second petitioner's wife. The subscriber of the mobile number not being a party to this proceedings, it is not appropriate for this court to direct preservation of those details, as that would amount to infringement of her privacy. The petitioner can cause the subscriber/second petitioner's wife to make an application in that regard.

The prayer for preserving the CDR/Tower location details of the detecting officer and the petitioners is granted. It is made clear that CDR/Data of mobile phone 9747559817 need be preserved only for the date 12/10/2022.

If the CDR and Tower location details are produced in court, that shall be done after masking all other details and numbers, than what is essential for the purpose of this case.