JUDGMENT : Shri Virendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Soni, learned Counsel for the respondent/Department. 2.The revision petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 13-9-2012 passed by ASJ, NDPS, Mandsaur rejecting the application of the petitioner under sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the petitioner was tried for offence under sections 9-A and 25-A of the NDPS Act and during the proceedings it so happened that the petitioner, who is the accused in this case was apprehended. The call details of the officers, who have allegedly apprehended the accused in person from the place of Suvasara are required for his alleged defence because it was a case of complete false implication and because the petitioner was only filling petrol in his motorcycle from the petrol pump, when he was wrongly apprehended by the officials of the respondent Narcotics Department, whereas they had actually come for an inspection and checkup due to the information received by Inspector Yogesh Pardikar and Counsel submitted that thereafter the accused was taken to Garoth and not finding any officers from the Narcotic Department in the office or officer concerned, they wrongly implicated the present accused. And only call details of the cell-phones of these officers would indicate that they had wrongly apprehended the present petitioner and the prosecution case was totally fabricated. 4. Consequently in these circumstances Counsel submitted that call details of cellphones; numbers as noted by the lower Court (Numbers are - 9407127972, 9424526747 and 09460155349) were essential to the defence of the accused. 5. However, Counsel submitted that record of the cellphones are maintained only for one year by concerned Telephone Department and thereafter, they are destroyed and since the present incident is of 9th and 10th March, 2012, it was of utmost importance that the telephone company be directed to preserve the record of transcription of the aforesaid cellphones belonging to official Narcotic Department. 6. Counsel for the respondent/Narcotics Department has opposed the submissions and stated that the petition is without merit primarily because there was no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court, stating that the order had not decided, anything of adverse interest against the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the respondent/Narcotics Department has opposed the submissions and stated that the petition is without merit primarily because there was no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court, stating that the order had not decided, anything of adverse interest against the petitioner. The trial Court has merely directed that the application of the accused under sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be considered at the time of defence of the petitioner and the petition be dismissed as being without merit. 7. On considering these facts and circumstances of the case and since it has been admitted that irreparable losses would be caused to the petitioner, I find that it is of utmost importance for the defence which requires the cellphones records to be preserved. 8. Hence exercising the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is directed that BSNL Telephone Company or any other company in whose name the aforesaid cellphones are recorded shall preserve record till the officers concerned of the Narcotics Department are examined in this regard. However, it is made clear that the company shall not disclose the details of the record or transcription available before it. The petitioner shall give an undertaking in writing before the trial Court to the effect that he shall not tamper with the said evidence and shall not try influence or approach the officer concerned in this regard. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the petition is allowed partly to the extent hereinabove indicated. Needless to say that this Court has not made any observation on merits of the case. 10. A copy of this order shall be served by the Counsel for the petitioner on the respondent/Department of Telephone Company, the trial Court and the respondent Narcotic Department, Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to do the needful. C. C. today.