Sandeep Kumar vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4914 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2023 Thana- MATIYARIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar, S/O Late Teni Prasad, R/O Village- Sherwa Masjidwa, P.O-
Sherwa Masjidwa, P.S- Matiyariya, Distt.- West Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Anand, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Sudhansu Prakash, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S. Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-07-2026

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment/order dated 07.11.2023, passed by the
Court of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-II, Bettiah,
West Champaran, in CIS Excise Case 3284 of 2023, arising out
of Matiyariya P. S. Case No. 88 of 2023, whereby the learned
trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence under
Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)
Act, 2022 on the basis of plea of guilt.
2. Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, learned counsel
for the appellant, has argued that while convicting the appellant,
the learned trial court wrongly placed reliance upon the breath
analyzer test, which cannot form the basis for convicting a

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4914 of 2024 dt.13-07-2026
2/4
person of the allegation of consuming liquor. It is further
submitted that the learned trial court committed an error in
convicting the appellant merely on the basis of his plea of guilty,
as the same was not voluntary. It is also contended that the
appellant was not given sufficient time to understand the
consequences of his plea of guilty. It is further submitted that
when the petitioner was taken for medical examination, neither
his blood sample nor his urine sample was collected for
chemical analysis.
3. After going through the trial court’s record, this
Court finds substance in the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant. It appears that there is no material
available on record to establish that the petitioner had
voluntarily and consciously pleaded guilty to the accusation and
on the very day on which the petitioner was produced before the
learned trial court by the police, the court proceeded to take
cognizance of the offence under Section 37 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, explained the
accusation to him, and thereafter, as recorded by the learned trial
court, the petitioner confessed to the accusation and pleaded
guilty. The manner in which the entire proceedings were
concluded on the same day does not inspire confidence that the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4914 of 2024 dt.13-07-2026
3/4
petitioner was properly apprised of the nature of the accusation
or the consequences of entering a plea of guilt. The alleged plea
of guilt also does not appear to be voluntary, particularly when
the petitioner was produced before the learned trial court
directly from police custody and there was no gap of single day
between his custody and production before the court to enable
him to understand the legal consequences of such plea and
further, this Court finds that Rule 18 of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022 mandates that, where an
accused pleads guilty of the offence punishable under Section
37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the statement
of the accused must be recorded in Form VIA and the
corresponding order sheet should be prepared in Form VII. The
prescribed procedure is statutory obligation not a matter of
formality, but in the present case, the order sheet purportedly
prepared in Form VII does not bear the signature of the learned
Presiding Officer. Such non-compliance with the statutory
procedure vitiates the proceedings. It is a settled principle of law
that where a statute prescribes that an act is to be done in a
particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone and not
in any other way as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4914 of 2024 dt.13-07-2026
4/4
4. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, coupled
with the failure of the learned trial court to discharge its
statutory obligation while passing the impugned order dated
07.11.2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 37 of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, are
hereby set aside.
5. The appeal is allowed.
6. The learned trial court is directed to proceed
with the trial of the appellant afresh from the stage of explaining
the accusation to him in respect of the alleged offence.
7. Let the records of the trial court, along with a
copy of this judgment, be sent forthwith to the court concerned
for compliance and for doing the needful in accordance with
law.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.07.2026
Transmission Date 18.07.2026