101 the IPDR and found during that time period from a mobile number or MSISD being number 8240136385 and device ID number 358960061307271 was used and exhibit 45 shows the same thing. P.W. 16 converted the domain Pornhub to IP address which was 31.192.120.36 using domaintoipconverter.com and this IP address matched with the destination IP address of exhibit 45 i.e. 31.192.120.36. P.W. 16 then searched the authorised portal in the CID monitoring Cell with the help of monitoring cell, CID, to get the subscriber details of the mobile number and found that the mobile number is registered in the name of Animesh Boxi, son of Purnendu Boxi, and the number is Reliance Jio and an alternative mobile number was also given and exhibit 47 is the said document and on perusal of the said document this court finds that the subscriber details of the mobile number 8240136385 is Animesh Boxi, father’s name Purnendu Boxi and alternative number is also given as +919733185096. The exhibits 43 to 47 are produced before this court as per the prayer of the prosecution u/s 91 Cr. PC. In Om Prakash v. CBI, Delhi (2000)5 SCC 679 it was held that “the powers conferred are enabling in nature aimed at the court or any officer in charge of a police station concerned to enforce and ensure production of any document or necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial etc”. In another judgment State v. Debendas (2005)1 SCC 568 : AIR 2005 SC 359 it was held that “thus the first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable”. So, for the purpose of trial this court allowed the petition u/s 91 Cr. PC filed from the side of the prosecution so that the case can be properly adjudicated. In State vs Navjot Sandhu AIR 2005 SC 3820 it was held that “the call records relating to cellular phones are not only admissible but it is also reliable”. So, relying this judgment of our Apex Court this the informations as provided by Reliance Jio Infocomm (exhibit 45) is not only admissible but also reliable. In this case exhibits 43 to 48 are identified and proved by P.W. 16 the traceability path is well established, i.e. from the IP address to the IMEI to the connection details and lastly to the user details which is in the name of the accused person, which inconclusively and beyond all reasonable doubt proves the fact that the sexually explicit materials being video of the private part of the victim girl being P.W. 1