The main legal point established is that an application under Section 91 Cr.PC can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, and the requested documents can become crucial evidence during trial.

Headnote:
Section 91 Cr.PC - Production of Mobile Numbers and Call Details - Court allows the petition, quashes the lower court's order, and directs the production of documents from the mobile operator during trial
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application under Section 91 Cr.PC to direct the respondents to produce official mobile numbers, call details, and mobile tower locations. The Court below dismissed the application, stating that it should be filed at the stage of defense.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner's request for mobile details was crucial to establish his defense and that the documents would become evidence during trial. The Court quashed the lower court's order and directed the production of documents from the mobile operator during the course of trial.
Issues: The main issue was the timing of the application under Section 91 Cr.PC and the necessity of producing mobile details before the commencement of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an application under Section 91 Cr.PC can be filed at any stage of the proceedings depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It emphasized the importance of the requested mobile details as evidence for the petitioner's defense.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition was allowed, and the Court directed the lower court to complete the proceeding within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in Crl.MP.No.4989 of 2022, dated 28.11.2022 dismissing the application filed under Section 91 Cr.PC, to direct the respondents to produce the official mobile numbers and to produce the call details and mobile tower locations of the respondents in the application.

2.Heard Mr.M.G.Martinmanivannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 1st respondent. 3.The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 were found to be in possession of 23 numbers of MDMA Ecstasy tablets weighing about 11 grams.

Hence, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.2.2022. The quantity that was seized from the accused persons is a commercial quantity.

4.The petitioner took a stand that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and that no such seizure took place from the petitioner and to establish the same, the petitioner wanted certain documents to be called for by filing an application under Section 91 Cr.PC.

5.The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner cannot file such an application even before the examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution and that the petitioner must wait till the stage of defense to file such an application. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

6.When the matter came up for hearing on 27.9.2023, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and the other accused persons is pending and no final orders have been passed. In view of the same, this Court wanted to get the particulars regarding the discharge petitions filed and thereafter pass final orders in this petition. This Court also took into consideration the earlier order passed in Crl.OP.No.17344 of 2023, dated 3.8.2023, wherein, this Court had directed the Court below to pass final orders in the discharge petition within a time frame. This Court accordingly called for a report from the leaned Principal Special Judge, Chennai.

7.A report has been received and it is seen that both the discharge petitions filed by A1 and A2 in Crl.MP.No.2411 of 2023 and Crl.MP.No.2648 of 2023 was disposed of by an order dated 9.11.2023 and it was dismissed. The case is now at the stage of framing of charges.

8.In the light of the above development, this court can proceed further to deal with the order passed by the Court below and pass final orders in this petition.

9.The petitioner (A1) has stated that on 25.6.2022, respondents 2, 5 and 6 called this petitioner on his Whatsapp number between 7.00 to 8.30 pm., and wanted the petitioner to come near Foreshore Estate. The petitioner did not act as per the directions and therefore, the police officials came to the house of the petitioner. At that time, the petitioner was staying along with his friend inside the house and they were taken to the police station and they were kept in the Police Station till 8.00 am., on 26.6.2022. Thereafter, they were shifted to a different place to B2 Esplanade Police Station at about 10.30 am. It is alleged that arrest took place on the ground that the contraband was seized from the petitioner and another. The petitioner wanted to prove this sequence of events by calling for the mobile tower details of the respondents who took the petitioner from his house on 25.6.2022.

10.The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that even the examination of the witnesses has not yet commenced on the side of the prosecution and therefore, the petitioner has to wait till the stage of defense.

11.The petitioner wants the information to be called for and collected since according to the petitioner, the mobile company will delete the records in two years. Therefore, if the information sought for by the petitioner is not furnished immediately, the petitioner will lose the opportunity to call for these details in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document