Judgment : 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasargod in Crl.M.P.No.2725 of 2014 in S.C.No.97 of 2014 pending before that Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as 5th accused in Crime No.594 of 2013 of the Chanthera Police Station along with others alleging offences punishable under Sections 118, 120B, 342, 449, 394, 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). After investigation final report has been filed and now the case is pending as S.C.No.97 of 2014 before the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasargod. During trial of the case the investigating officer was examined as PW114. During cross-examination by the counsel for the petitioner, a specific question was put to the witness with regard to usage of his official mobile phone. The witness stated that he was using the same. The defence case put forwarded by the petitioner is that he was not arrested from the place alleged by the prosecution and also no recovery as alleged by the prosecution was in fact effected. The petitioner's case is that he was arrested from his house at Kannur and no recovery was effected as claimed by the prosecution. He filed Crl.M.P.No.2725 of 2014 for summoning the District Police Chief, Kasargod to produce the call records and cell ID of the official phone number used by the Investigating officer to trace the tower location of the investigating officer. The Court below after erroneous consideration dismissed the application by the impugned order. That order is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the prosecution was that he was arrested from a particular place and after arrest he was questioned and on the basis of the confession made by him certain recoveries were effected which they want to rely on under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The case of the petitioner was that he was really taken into custody by the Police from Kannur which is away from the alleged place of occurrence. The case of the petitioner was that he was really taken into custody by the Police from Kannur which is away from the alleged place of occurrence. But the prosecution case was that he was taken from a place at Malappuram and thereafter the recovery was effected. When PW114 was examined, he had admitted that he was having an official mobile phone but he had stated that he does not remember as to whether he was having a personal mobile phone at that time. He has also stated that he did not remember as to whether there were any calls received in his mobile phone on that particular date. So in order to prove that fact, the petitioner had filed the present Crl.M.P. for the purpose of getting the call details and also the tower location so as to disprove the case of the prosecution. As a defence he is entitled to call for such evidence and that is only evidence available to prove his innocence. Further the reason stated by the Court below regarding the exemptions are not available to the Police and that will not affect the right of the Court to get into those informations for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the case. 5. The application is opposed by the State Public Prosecutor on the ground that the District Police Chief is not bound to furnish the official details or the call details of the Police officer which is received by him in his official mobile phone as it may contain so many secrete informations and also informations affecting the safety of the persons who are giving information to the investigating officer. Further such particulars need not be made public by the District Police officer as well. Further even in the petition except a vague allegation, there is nothing mentioned as stated by the counsel for the petitioner before this Court so as to enable the Court below to consider those aspects in the detail as well and the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings. So he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is arrayed as 5th accused in Crime No.594 of 2013 of the Chanthera Police Station along with other accused persons alleging commission offences punishable under Sections 118, 120B, 342, 449, 394, 302 of the IPC. So he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is arrayed as 5th accused in Crime No.594 of 2013 of the Chanthera Police Station along with other accused persons alleging commission offences punishable under Sections 118, 120B, 342, 449, 394, 302 of the IPC. It is an admitted fact that after investigation final report was filed and the case is now pending trial as S.C.No.97 of 2014 before the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasargod. It is also an admitted fact that the prosecution witnesses were examined and the prosecution evidence was closed and after examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2725 of 2014 under Section 233 of the Code to direct the Superintendent of Police, Kasargod to produce the call data records and cell ID of the mobile phone number 9497987222, duly attested and certified under Section 2(O) of the Information Technology Act. That petition was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order. 7. The case of the prosecution was that he was arrested on 03.10.2013 from Cholakal in Payyanad Village of Malappuram District. According to the petitioner he was arrested from his house on 29.09.2013 at Kannur and not from the place mentioned by the prosecution on 03.10.2013. It is also seen from the order of the Court below that when PW114, the investigating officer was examined, a suggestive question was put to him as to whether he was having an official mobile phone with him on that day and also whether he was having his personal phone. He had stated that he is having an official mobile phone, but stated that he did not remember as to whether he was having his personal mobile phone with him and a suggestive question was given that he was not arrested from that place as claimed by the prosecution but he was taken from Kannur on a previous day and the documents were converted to falsely implicate him in the case which was denied by him. 8. The petition filed by the petitioner before the Court below reads as follows: APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 233 OF Cr.P C. It is respectfully submitted as follows: 1. That during the course of prosecution evidence PW114 the investigation officer deposed that A5 was arrested on 03.10.2013 from Cholakal in Payyanad village of Malappuram District. 2. 8. The petition filed by the petitioner before the Court below reads as follows: APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 233 OF Cr.P C. It is respectfully submitted as follows: 1. That during the course of prosecution evidence PW114 the investigation officer deposed that A5 was arrested on 03.10.2013 from Cholakal in Payyanad village of Malappuram District. 2. In fact the accused was taken from his house on 29.09.2013. During the cross examination PW114 stated that while arresting A5 the mobile No.9794987222 was with him the call details and cell I D of the said number will disprove the prosecution case. 3. It is therefore prayed that this Honourable court may be pleased to direct the Superintendent of of Police Kasargod to produce the call data records and cell ID from 20.09.2013 to 03.10.2013 of the mobile No.9794987222 duly attested and certified U/S 2(O) of Information Technology Act. " 9. In the petition his prayer was to direct the Superintendent of Police, Kasargod to produce the call data records and cell ID of mobile phone number 9497987222 from 20.09.2013 to 03.10.2013. The purpose for which the application was filed is also not specifically mentioned in the petition. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that that was intended to find out the tower location of the mobile phone at the particular day so as to disprove the fact that the petitioner was arrested by the investigating officer from a particular place was not been found a place in the petition. Even the Superintendent of Police furnished the particulars that will not help the Court to come to a conclusion which the petitioner wants to get from those particulars and the Superintendent of Police may not be able to give details regarding tower location and the phone calls received as well. Further the State Public Prosecutor was perfectly justified in making the submission that the petitioner is not entitled to get the call details received or information regarding the calls received by the Police officer in his official mobile phone and that is likely to affect the safety of the persons as well. Further under the Right to Information Act also there is a prohibition for furnishing such details. Further under the Right to Information Act also there is a prohibition for furnishing such details. Section 31 of the Police Act also says that certain information collected by the Police in receipt of the activities of any individual or institution in the course of discharge of their duties shall be kept in confidential except for the purpose of using such information for any official need alone. Further Section 8(g) and (h) of the Right to Information Act says that certain particulars mentioned there in are exempted which read as follows: (g) Information, disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information are assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. 10. Further the District Police Chief is not expected to disclose these call details and he will not be in possession of the call details also with him as well. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act also deals with prohibition of disclosing certain matters by the service providers except for the purpose mentioned under sub section 3 of that Act. 11. Further even without these documents the case of the petitioner was that he was arrested on 29.09.2013 from Kannur and not on 03.10.2013 from Cholakal in Payyanad Village of Malappuram District, cannot be proved by other evidence. He can very well adduce other evidence regarding this aspect which he has not done in this case. So in the circumstances this Court feels that there is no illegality committed by the Court below on the basis of the particulars mentioned in the petition while dismissing the application claiming relief in the petition and that order does not call for any interference under Section 482 of the Code. So the application is dismissed.