ORDER : 1. Order dated 07.06.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Poonch (for short ‘the trial Court’) is being challenged by the petitioner herein, while invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 2. According to the petitioner, a challan under FIR No. 59/2017 for offences under Section 8/15/20/21/22/29 of NDPS, Act came to be presented by the respondent in respect of an alleged recovery of contraband from the possession of the petitioner alleging recovery of the contraband on 31.03.2017 at around 7:30 P.M. during a Naka laid by Dy. SP Operations Dr. Mohd. Saleen Bhat at Bhatakas, Mehndar. 3. According to the petitioner, after framing of charges by the trial Court, prosecution was directed to produced evidence as a consequence whereof, statement of PW-1 namely, Dy. SP. Operations Dr. Mohd Saleem Bhat came to be recorded on 24.05.2017 and 25.05.2017 and during his cross-examination, the witness was confronted with call detail records (CDR) pertaining to his cell phone number which revealed that at that relevant time, the said witness was in Poonch Town, at a distance of 50 Kms away from the place of Naka and that during cross examination, the witness confirmed cell phone numbers of another four prosecution witnesses, who happened to be his PSOs and Driver and were supposed to be with him at Poonch at that relevant point of time. 4. According to the petitioner, in view of the admission of the contents of the documentary evidence by PW-1 and the information in respect of cell phones of other prosecution witnesses, the petitioner, filed an application under Section 94 Cr.P.C. praying before the trial Court for summoning of the Call Detail Records pertaining to the cell numbers of the said prosecution witness, being significant, desirable and necessary evidence to be used during the trial for contesting the veracity of the ocular account of proposed witnesses qua the presence or otherwise of the said witnesses at alleged place of Naka. 5. According to the petitioner, the trial Court, however, dismissed the said application, so filed by the petitioner without appreciating the legal position. 6. 5. According to the petitioner, the trial Court, however, dismissed the said application, so filed by the petitioner without appreciating the legal position. 6. According to the petitioner, the production, examination and appreciation of call details of the cell phones of the prosecution witnesses has been not only desirable but also necessary for just conclusion of the trial, more so, in view of the fact, that call detail records bear credible documentary evidence and would be an ample proof of the absence of the prosecution witnesses at or around the place of alleged Naka and recovery of the contraband. 7. According to the petitioner, the production of the call detail records declined by the trial Court essentially prejudiced the defence of the petitioner and amounts to the denial to the fair trial of the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions reiterated the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and grant of relief as prayed in the application filed before the trial Court. 10. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents, however, would controvert and resist the contentions raised and grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioner and would contend that the order under challenge has been passed validly and legally by the trial Court and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 11. Before adverting to the controversy raised in the petition it would be appropriate and germane to refer to Section 94 (now 91) Cr.P.C. here under:- “91. Summons to produce document or other thing: (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed: (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891). (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.” 12. Perusal of the aforesaid provision, would reveal that the powers conferred under Section 94 (91) are enabling in nature aimed at arming the Court or any officer in- charge of Police Station concerned to enforce and to ensure the production of any document or other things “necessary or desirable” for the purposes of any investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code, by issuing a summons or a written order to those in possession of such material. Further it transpires that the Court can at any stage of proceedings direct production of a document under this Section whenever it considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of any enquiry or trial. 13. A further reference to Sections 65, 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence, Act, also becomes relevant herein. While Section 65 provides for cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given, Section 65-A provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records and Section 65-B provides for admissibility of electronic records. 14. Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines documents as follows: “Documents means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purposes of recording that matter.” The said definition can be understood by the following illustrations:- (i) A writing is a document. (ii) Words printed lithographed or photographed are documents. (iii) A map or plan is a document. (iv) An inscription on a metal plate carved on stone is a document. (v) A caricature is a document. 15. (ii) Words printed lithographed or photographed are documents. (iii) A map or plan is a document. (iv) An inscription on a metal plate carved on stone is a document. (v) A caricature is a document. 15. As appears from reading of the above provisions, it gets revealed that Section 65 enumerates seven exceptional cases in which secondary evidence is admissible and that under this Section secondary evidence may be given of the contents of a document in civil as well as in criminal proceedings. 16. Under Section 65A, contents of electronic records can be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 B which provides for the mode of its proof. The facility of proof by secondary evidence would apply to any computer output as the same has been deemed to be a document for the purposes of proof. However, law is settled that the conditions of admissibility of such evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt if such document is tendered by prosecution and on the balance of probability if it is tendered by defence. 17. The call detail records sought by the petitioner to be produced of the prosecution witnesses in view of the unauthentic call detail records produced by the petitioner herein assumes significance and had direct bearing on the trial of the case. The petitioner had rightly sought the production of call detail records by laying a motion before the trial Court under Section 94 (91) of the Code as the petitioner herein was neither in possession nor in control of the same and that the petitioner had genuine reason of destruction/deletion of the said call detail records by the afflux of time which would result in grave prejudice to the petitioner and in the process cause miscarriage of justice. The Trial court while considering the application of the petitioner has misdirected itself and misplaced the law. The Trial Court has overlooked the provisions of Section 94 (91) in its true and correct perspective. 18. The trial Court ought to have summoned the call detail records of the prosecution witnesses in order to secure and safeguard the same for securing them from being deleted/destroyed and could have decided the usage of said call detail records at an appropriate stage of the trial in accordance with law. The trial Court ought not to have straightway dismissed the application of the petitioner without looking into this aspect. The trial Court ought not to have straightway dismissed the application of the petitioner without looking into this aspect. 19. The impugned order in view of above thus, is not sustainable in law, and is, accordingly set aside and consequently the trial Court is directed to ensure the summoning of the call detail records of the prosecution witnesses as sought by the petitioner herein under the application filed in this regard and secure the same in a sealed cover for the purposes of further proceedings in the case. 20. Petition disposed of along with connected I.A.