Call Detail Records, IMEI values, and cell-site fields are digital traces. They can support an investigation file when they are obtained lawfully, stored carefully, analysed without over-claiming, and presented so a later reader can see what was done. They cannot replace eyewitnesses, recoveries, or a complete missal. This page covers preservation, chain of custody in plain terms, what analysis can and cannot show, and how to describe results honestly in the file. It is not legal advice; your district standing orders and the court that will hear the file decide what is admissible. For the investigation workflow and import steps, see CDR analysis for police investigations.
Last updated: September 2026
Disclosure: HR Solutions develops Missal Police Writing (MPW) and CDR Analyzer. Nothing on this page is legal advice, a commentary on any statute’s wording, or an instruction to collect records without lawful cover. Do not treat product screenshots or sample tables as proof in a live case.
Three kinds of trace تین قسم کے سراغ
A Call Detail Record is a table of events the operator associated with a number: typically voice and SMS, with timestamps, the other party, and technical fields. It is generated by network systems, not by the investigation officer. Once it is in your custody, you may sort it, but you should not silently rewrite cells and then call the edited sheet “the operator file.”
An IMEI is an identifier for a handset (or a radio module) as recorded in those events. It can help you ask whether one device appears across several numbers, or whether one number jumps between devices. It is not a fingerprint of a human being. Dual-SIM phones, replacements after a smash, and operator typing can all produce messy IMEI columns.
Cell tower data in a CDR is usually a set of identifiers (cell, site, LAC) and sometimes coordinates or a place name the operator attached. It shows which sector the network used for an event. It does not place a person on a particular chair. Overlap, load, and indoor/outdoor conditions all matter. When you export KML from CDR Analyzer for map review, you are looking at that radio association, not at a GPS track from the handset.
These three traces often travel together in one spreadsheet. Keep them conceptually separate when you write. “The number made a call at 21:12” is a CDR claim. “The same IMEI appears on a second number” is a device claim. “The event used cell identifier X” is a radio claim. Combining them into “the accused was in the shop” is a narrative you must support with other evidence, or not write at all.
Preservation of the original file اصل فائل کا تحفظ
Preservation means you can still show what arrived from the operator. Practical habits:
- Keep the operator’s original workbook or CSV read-only, or store a hash/date note if your unit uses one.
- Analyse a working copy in CDR Analyzer. Import does not replace the original file on disk.
- Do not “clean” the original by deleting rows you find inconvenient. Filters belong in the analysis tool, not in a rewritten source.
- Record the request date, the return date, the number, the date range, and the FIR or inquiry label in the diary or in the note your standing order requires.
- Avoid extra copies on personal phones and public cloud folders. Extra copies are extra places the file can leak.
Example (not a real case): a Zong file arrives by the unit’s channel. The muharrir saves it under the FIR folder as received. The investigation officer copies it into CDR Analyzer’s dataset. Two weeks later a defence question asks whether any rows were dropped. The original file is still there; the exported PDF states the filter dates. That is preservation. If the only remaining file is a hand-edited Excel with rows deleted “for the court,” you have made your own exhibit problem.
If the operator later sends a corrected extract, keep both versions labelled. Say which annex belongs to which delivery. Do not overwrite the first file with the second and pretend there was only one.
Chain of custody in plain terms تحویل کی زنجیر — سادہ الفاظ میں
Chain of custody, for this kind of file, is a story a later reader can follow: who requested the record, who received it, where it was stored, who opened it, and what was printed into the missal. You do not need dramatic language. You need dates, names, and file names that match.
Write the subject number on the dataset in CDR Analyzer the same way it appears on the request. If two officers share a PC, note who ran the export that went into the file. If a USB drive was used because the operator CD came that way, say so and keep the media with other digital exhibits according to your store-room practice — including seals, which we discuss as a field problem in common investigation mistakes.
CDR Analyzer organises datasets by FIR and subject so you are less likely to paste the wrong person’s MFC into the right person’s zimni. That is a software aid. It is not a custody log by itself. MPW can print covering forms; it does not watch the USB port. Comparison of the two products: MPW vs CDR Analyzer.
Example (not a real case): an officer imports a Telenor CSV, runs MFL, and emails the PDF to a personal Gmail “to print at home.” That email is a new copy outside the station. Even if the analysis is correct, the path of the exhibit is now harder to explain. Print at the authorised machine or follow the channel your unit already uses for papers.
What analysis can show تجزیہ کیا دکھا سکتا ہے
Used carefully, analysis can show:
- Which B-parties appear most often in a chosen date range (MFC).
- Which cell identifiers appear most often (MFL).
- Whether IMEI values are stable or jump, and whether two numbers share a device identifier.
- The order of events in an incident window (timeline).
- Contacts, devices, or sites that appear in more than one lawful CDR (multi-CDR comparison).
- Gaps that are really gaps in the export versus gaps you created with a filter.
Those are descriptions of a table. They are useful because humans cannot rank ten thousand rows by eye. They become more useful when you write the filter you used: “MFC for 12 September 2026, 18:00–23:00, voice and SMS,” not “top contacts” with no dates. CDR Analyzer lets you export those views; the honesty is in the caption you put on the annex. Feature list: CDR Analyzer. Workflow: complete CDR workflow.
Analysis can also show data-quality problems: empty IMEI, truncated days, mixed operators in one sheet. Reporting a limitation is itself a finding. Courts and supervisors can work with “the operator did not send cell IDs.” They cannot work with a map you invented.
What analysis cannot prove تجزیہ کیا ثابت نہیں کر سکتا
Stay inside the rows. Analysis cannot by itself prove:
- Who physically held the phone at a given second (unless other evidence speaks to possession).
- The content of a call or the wording of an SMS, if the CDR has no content — most investigation CDRs do not.
- Exact indoor location from a cell identifier.
- That a frequent contact is an accomplice.
- That silence means the phone was switched off, if the export might simply omit those hours.
- Guilt. Software ranks events; it does not decide a charge.
Example (not a real case): two CDRs share a market tower between 20:00 and 21:00. That is consistent with both handsets using the same sector. It is also consistent with two strangers shopping. Without more, it is not “they met.” If a zimni writes “they met at the tower,” you have over-claimed. Pair the sector with CCTV, a recovery, or a statement if those exist. If they do not, leave the claim at radio association.
Do not dress a chart in language copied from a law book. This site does not quote criminal-procedure or penal-code text. Quote your operator file and your export captions. Let the prosecutor and the court apply the law.
Presenting results (practical, not legal advice) نتائج پیش کرنا (عملی، قانونی مشورہ نہیں)
When a file goes forward, someone will ask what the annex is. A practical package many units can assemble — if their orders allow — looks like this:
- The request and return papers (the lawful cover), filed as they already are in the missal.
- A note of the original file name, operator, number, and date range.
- A printed or PDF export from CDR Analyzer with the filter dates on the first page or in the header.
- A short covering paragraph in the zimni: what was examined, what was not claimed.
- If a map was used, a print that still shows cell identifiers, not only a coloured blob.
Use language a non-specialist can check. “Annex B is MFC for number [redacted here] from 10 to 12 September, generated on 18 September in CDR Analyzer” is checkable. “The software proved the conspiracy” is not. If you are the officer who will be asked questions, sit with the original spreadsheet once after you print, so you can find the same times without the chart.
Do not bind a 200-page unfiltered dump if the issue is a two-hour window. Volume is not seriousness. Conversely, do not hide the rest of the CDR if a fair reader would need context — for example a “new” contact who is actually frequent outside your cropped window. If you crop, say that you cropped.
This is presentation hygiene, not advocacy training. How a particular court in your district wants digital annexes labelled is a local practice. Ask the prosecutor or the reader who actually takes your files. HR Solutions cannot speak in court for you. For product support only, use Contact.
If you are asked to explain an IMEI jump, bring the original column, not only the summary screen. Say when the identifier first appeared and whether voice and SMS both show it. If you are asked about a tower, bring the cell identifier as the operator wrote it, plus the time. Do not convert a sector name into a shop address unless another exhibit supports that step. Repeatability — another officer can import the same file and see the same rows — is what makes these traces usable. A one-off screenshot with no original workbook is much weaker, even if the chart looks neat.
Linking software work to the missal سافٹ ویئر کام کو مسل سے جوڑنا
The missal is still paper (or the printed set your station treats as the file). MPW is for writing that file: FIR data, zimni, chalan, applications. See police missal writing in Pakistan and how to install MPW. If Urdu prints as boxes, that is a Windows font issue, not a CDR issue: Urdu typing on Windows.
When you mention CDR work in a zimni, keep identifiers consistent with the MPW case record — same FIR number, same accused spelling. Inconsistent keywords are a typing problem (common missal writing mistakes). Importing the wrong person’s spreadsheet into the right FIR is an investigation problem (common investigation mistakes). Both can sink a digital annex.
Download Windows software only from missalpolicewriting.pk. Modified analyzers from chat groups can alter how tables look and can put case data at risk. Download safety explains the.rar packages we publish.
Example (not a real case): the missal holds a Jazz request, a Jazz original file on the investigation PC, a CDR Analyzer PDF titled with the FIR, and a zimni paragraph that lists the incident-window filters. A later officer can repeat the import. That repeatability is the point of treating CDR, IMEI, and tower fields as evidence rather than as a rumour in a notebook.