Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The present criminal writ has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:—

i. For issuance of a declaration to the effect that the Petitioner could not be held guilty in Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 69/21, dated 25.03.2021 registered u/s 37(b) and (c) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and corresponding Excise Case No. 257/2021 in view of the fact that the police could not produce any cogent material to prove the allegations against the Petitioner and that the Petitioner having been counselled by his advocate, despite pleading his innocence, deposited the fine of Rs. 2,000/- only to end up the pending trial.

ii. For a further declaration that no social stigma of consuming alcohol could be attached to the petitioner for any practical purposes simply because he deposited the fine of Rs. 2,000/- in the said case.

iii. For any other relief for which the Petitioner may be considered fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

2. Brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the present writ, are that the petitioner along with co-accused Pawan Kumar Singh were apprehended on 25.03.2021 by the police in an inebriated condition after a tip off that two persons had been creating ruckus and indulging in misbehavior with public. Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2021 has been registered against petitioner and co-accused under Section 37(b)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘the Excise Act’). It further transpires from the record that petitioner had been working in the capacity of Special Survey Amin under the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Shankarpur Area of district Madhepura. The petitioner filed an application before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Excise, Madhepura in Excise Case No. 257 of 2021 submitting that the petitioner was willing to end the matter by deposit of fine. Consequently, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Excise, Madhepura vide order dated 22.04.2022 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo one month of simple imprisonment and with this order the case was disposed of. Thereafter the petitioner preferred the instant writ.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never pleaded guilty before the learned trial court and under wrong legal advice he deposited the fine. From the order of the learned trial court it appears as if the petitioner had pleaded guilty but the same is not the case. The application filed by the petitioner shows he never submitted before the trial court the he pleads guilty rather he has submitted that he is completely innocent and he just wanted the matter to end and for this purpose he was ready to deposit the fine. The learned counsel further submits that the order of the learned trial court is illegal and the same has been passed without any compliance of the relevant provisions of law. Form VII under Rule 18 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021(in short the ‘Excise Rules’) prescribes the format of the order sheet when an accused is produced before the Court for commission of offences under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 which specifically provides that the Court has to ask the accused whether he pleads guilty and if he pleads guilty then only he can be directed to pay fine. The present order is not in the format prescribed under Rule 18 of the Excise Rules. Even for pleading guilty, a format under Rule 18 has been provided in the form of Form VI A. But neither the deposition of the petitioner was recorded in the format of Form VIA nor the learned trial court drew the order sheet in the format of Form VII of the Excise Rules. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of Jadunandan Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1998(1) BLJ 825 in Cr. Rev. No. 400 of 1992 wherein the learned Single Judg