JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the accused, who is facing trial for the offence under Section 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act in e Court of Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Bhilwara. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been charged for the above offence and prosecution evidence has commenced. During the course of trial, the complainant filed and application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. praying that call details of the mobile number of Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, Prabodh Sharma, Inspector, Rahul Joshi, Inspector, Gopa Ram, Inspector and Nemichand, Sub-Inspector pertaining to 16.8.2010 to 17.8.2010 be called to determine their location. 3. Specific case of the petitioner is that the prosecution alleges that recovery was affected from the petitioner by the above said police officials, who were the members of the raiding team. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since no recovery was made, the police officials in the form of raiding party were not present at the spot, as the entire recovery is a padding. 5. The Court below had rejected the prayer made by the petitioner-accused on the ground that call details of the public servants, who were engaged in the affairs of the affairs of the State can not be called as they are part of the official recorded. 6. The reasoning propounded by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Bhilwara can not be accepted because valuable rights of the^ petitioner to project his defence would be defeated as petitioner being accused can prove that police officials were not present to deny the allegations that the police officials who had allegedly participated in the search and seizure of the contraband article from the accused, were not present at alleged place of recovery. At the same time, the Court has to balance the equities and has to ensure that the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by the accused is not used as means to delay the proceedings. 7. Consequently, taking total perspective of the case, it is ordered that I accused after recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can examine officials of the service provider (Mobile companies) as witnesses along with J detail of the towers from which call had emanated. The Trial Court is further directed to issue a direction to the companies to preserve the record of call details, if not already destroyed. 8. The Trial Court is further directed to issue a direction to the companies to preserve the record of call details, if not already destroyed. 8. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of. *******