Conviction Based on Plea of Guilty Vitiated by Non-Compliance with Mandatory Statutory Procedure and Formats

The appellant was arrested and charged under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, for consuming liquor.

On the same day he was produced before the Court of the Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-II, Bettiah, the court took cognizance, explained the accusation, and convicted the appellant based on his oral plea of guilt.

The appellant challenged this conviction, contending that the plea was not voluntary, he was not apprised of the consequences, and no blood or urine samples were collected for chemical analysis.

1. Whether the conviction based on the appellant’s plea of guilt was legally sustainable given the lack of evidence regarding its voluntariness.

2. Whether the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedures prescribed under Rule 18 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022.

Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, concerning the consumption of liquor.

Rule 18 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which mandates that a plea of guilt must be recorded in Form VIA and the corresponding order sheet in Form VII.

State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements (2005) 1 SCC 368, which stipulates that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be done in that manner alone and no other.

The trial court's summary proceedings on a single day did not inspire confidence regarding the voluntariness of the plea.

Since the appellant was produced directly from police custody and convicted immediately, he lacked the time to understand the legal consequences of his admission.

Rule 18 mandates the use of specific forms (VIA and VII), but the order sheet in Form VII lacked the signature of the Presiding Officer.

Applying the doctrine from Ambay Cements, the Court held that such non-compliance with statutory procedure vitiated the entire proceeding, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.11.2023 were set aside. The trial court was directed to proceed with a fresh trial from the stage of explaining the accusation to the appellant in accordance with the law.