ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. The instant Criminal Misc Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Churu, in Session Case No. 01/2023 (State v. Jagtar Singh & Ors.), whereby the petitioners’ application seeking the production of call details of the recovered mobile phones and the location of police officials at the time of seizure was erroneously dismissed. 2. The gist of the present case is that the petitioners, aggrieved by an order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Churu, whereby the learned Judge dismissed their application for the production of call details, had respectfully submitted that they had been implicated as an accused in a criminal case under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioners had contended before the trial court that the charge-sheet had been submitted on the basis of false and fabricated evidence and that the investigation had been deficient, particularly regarding non-examination of call records from the recovered mobile phones and the absence of any investigation into the whereabouts of the police officials at the time of the alleged seizure. However, the learned trial Court had dismissed the application without due consideration of these pertinent facts and applicable legal principles. 3. The petitioners contended that the trial Court had erroneously dismissed their application for the production of call details, thereby prejudicing their fundamental right to a fair trial. They argued that the non-consideration of call records had resulted into miscarriage of justice, particularly in light of directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 273/2020 (Swarn Singh @ Baba Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 18.02.2020), which emphasized the expeditious disposal of such applications to prevent the loss of crucial evidence. The petitioner further contended that denial of access to call details and police officer locations had severely hampered their ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses and challenge the prosecution's evidence, thus violating their right to confront witnesses and present a robust defence. The petitioner further contended that denial of access to call details and police officer locations had severely hampered their ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses and challenge the prosecution's evidence, thus violating their right to confront witnesses and present a robust defence. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the information, which was crucial for establishing the truth and ensuring a just determination of the case, contravening the principles of natural justice and the mandate to provide a level playing field to both the prosecution and the defense 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to the controversy involved in the case of Chotha Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SBCRLMP No.3672/2023 decided on 04.03.2023. The relevant paragraphs are being reproduced hereunder:- “11. This Court feels that if for the purpose of reserving and saving the right of the accused and for the sake of justice, if a prayer is made to summon the electronic evidence so as to elicit the truth behind the story, then such prayer ought not to have been declined. When the assertion is made that what is wrong may be proved to be wrong and vice-versa in the end so that the oil and truth must come out, then the defence must be given an opportunity because not giving an opportunity would mean denying them to counter the charges or to defend themselves as well as closing the door of justice for truth to enter in. 12. It is true that after commencement of the trial, the opportunity is being given to the prosecution to lead or adduce evidence in support of charges, whereafter an explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. will be sought from the accused and then the stage of entering into defence under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. would come. 12. It is true that after commencement of the trial, the opportunity is being given to the prosecution to lead or adduce evidence in support of charges, whereafter an explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. will be sought from the accused and then the stage of entering into defence under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. would come. It is also true that until the stage of taking the evidence of the defence on record comes, the defence evidence is not required to be taken on record and for that purpose no defence material would be summoned but here is not the question of taking or tendering the defence evidence or relying upon that rather it is observed that, as per the Rules and Regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the data of call record is deleted automatically after lapse of one year, then it becomes the duty of the Court to save the data so as to enable the defence or any other party to take use of it at the appropriate stage. In fact, ordering saving/storing/preserving data from destroy would not mean that at the premature stage defence evidence is taken. 13. It does not mean that allowing an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for protection of electronic records from deletion and summoning the same to keep on record would mean taking evidence of defence at a nascent stage; rather, it is being done only for the purpose of saving and protecting the evidence from being destroyed. In fact, the defence evidence shall be taken and considered after the stage of Section 233 of Cr.P.C. would come. The Court of Law and Justice is not supposed to tolerate vanishing or damaging the evidence of vital importance, the presence of which would be displaying the truth which would further mean that the truth will prevail, that the truth will be separated and set aside from the lies. 14. It is not comprehensible that what is the harm if the evidence of vital importance, which may play a key role in adjudicating the charges, is saved, stored, preserved and protected from being destroyed till the actual stage of consideration of that evidence would come. 15. 14. It is not comprehensible that what is the harm if the evidence of vital importance, which may play a key role in adjudicating the charges, is saved, stored, preserved and protected from being destroyed till the actual stage of consideration of that evidence would come. 15. This Court is of the firm opinion that if the accused persons are taking risk in making prayer for summoning call data record and tower locations record of the police officers, who claim that they apprehended the accused persons from a particular place and at a particular time, which if produced and found genuine then it may be a further piece of evidence against them as the story of the prosecution shall be proved genuine, however, imagine that if the call data record and tower locations of the police officers are not found to be matching with the time and place mentioned in the seizure memo, then it may be a serious dent in the story set out in the charge-sheet and so then there is no legal impediment in summoning the material even at a premature stage just for the purpose of saving the same from deletion. The main object of the courts are meant to impart justice and for that very object it is established. If something suggesting for truth to come on record then in my opinion not allowing the same would mean hiding the truth. 16. Why an opportunity could not be granted to the accused to disprove the charges, though such evidence would neither be considered before its actual stage nor any finding would be given on it but at least an order for protection/preservation of the evidence can certainly be passed. 17. A plain reading of Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C. if read together would elucidate that whenever it appears to the Court that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case, then it may call or recall such evidence or witness at any stage of the trial. Even after culmination of trial and during pendency of the appeal, such task can be undertaken by the Court by taking resort to Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. as the ultimate object of the Court is to impart justice and justice only. 18. Even after culmination of trial and during pendency of the appeal, such task can be undertaken by the Court by taking resort to Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. as the ultimate object of the Court is to impart justice and justice only. 18. For the purpose of making differentiation between truth and lie, the course of law is supposed to provide ample opportunities to the parties of the lis so that the ultimate task of securing the ends of justice can be achieved. 6. In view of the above, the instant Misc. Petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Sardarshar District Churu in Sessions Case No.01/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application moved on behalf of the petitioners, on 27.042023 is allowed and it is directed that the learned trial Court shall pass necessary directions to the respondent- State/police officers as well as the service provider company of the respective mobile numbers for providing requisite call details and tower locations of the police officers, names of which are mentioned in the application preferred on behalf of the petitioners. The police officer of the concerned Police Station shall also be directed to procure the above evidence at the earliest so as to prevent them from destroying, vanishing and deletion of the same. After receiving the above evidence, the trial Court is directed to keep it on record of the case along with certification under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and the same could be utilized by both the parties during the examination of the witnesses. The accused shall be permitted to ask questions from the concerned police officers by confronting them regarding the electronic record produced. The above task is permitted only with a view to ascertain or shake the credibility of the witnesses and to enable the parties to bring the truth on record and which would not mean leading the defence evidence rather it would be a cross check of the prosecution evidence. The accused shall be at liberty to use these call details at the appropriate stage of the trial. 7. The stay petition stands disposed of.