( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dt. 10-11-1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Misc. Crl. App. 6 of 1976 modifying the order dt. 16-1-1976 passed by the Judical Magistrate First Class, bhalki, in CC. 29|3 of 1976, directing this petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs. 5,000 with one surety in the like sum and binding him for good behaviour for a period of five years. ( 2 ) THE records show that on 16-1-1976 the police produced the petitioner before the said Magistrate and placed information to the effect that the petitioner had been convicted in CC. 28/3 of 1974 by the Judicial magistrate First Class, Basavakalyan, and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 100 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for the offence under S. 3 read with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and further on, that on 3-9-1974 he was found exporting rice from Andhra pradesh to Maharashtra via Karnataka and when CW. 2 the Sub-Inspector of Police chased him, he (CW. 2) was assaulted and a case in Crime no. 22 of 1974 under Secs. 279, 332 and 353 of the IPC read with C1. 3 of the Rice (Southern Zone Movement Control) Order, 1957, had been registered and that the said facts disclosed that the petitioner was in the habit of committing the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, and hence action under Sec. 110 (f) (i) (e) Crlpc was to be taken. The magistrate immediately framed the substance of the accusation and recorded the plea of the petitioner as follows :"that you during the year 1974 were found exporting Rice to maharashtra State from Karnataka and that you were convicted in cc. 28/3/74 and fined Rs. 100 ID for 7 days, by the JMFC, basavakalyan, and that on 3-9-1974 at about 10 A. M. you were found exporting rice in your jeep from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra State via Karnataka without permit and that when the PSI, Aurad, chased you in Police jeep, you evaded your arrest by moving from Kushnur sangam, Ambesangi cross, Halberga, Bhalki and Hulsur and that when the said PSI caught you at Hulsur you had assaulted him and caused injuries and hence a case in Cr No. 72/74 U/s. 279/332j353, IPC and C1. 3 Rice (Southern Zone Movement Control) Order, 1957, is registered by the Police Hulsur and a charge-sheet is submitted. Thereby you are in habit of committing such types of offences. Show cause why you should not be bound over for (5) years to be of good behaviour for the said period, under Sec 110 (f) (i) (a), criminal Procedure Code. " ( 3 ) PLEA of the Accused : " Sahi hai" thereafter the Magistrate passed his order as narrated above. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Bidar. It was argued before the Sessions Judge that the Magistrate had no power to bind over the accussed for a period of five years when the law empowered him to bind over such persons for a period of three years only and that the provisions of S. 110 and 111 Cr. P. C. had not been complied with. The learned Sessions Judge concluded that the provisions of sec. 111crlpc had not been complied with but that was not a serious irregularity so as to make him interfere in the order. In regard to the other aspect namely the question of binding over the petitioner for a period of five years, the learned Sessions Judge modified the same to a period of three years. ( 4 ) SMT. G. S. ANASUYA, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that under S. 110 (f) Cr. P. C. , a Magistrate has to follow the procedure prescribed thereafter and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have passed an order under S. 111 Cr. P. C. in the first instance and then read it over to the accused and thereafter proceeded to record his plea. She argued on this basis that when the trial Court has failed to follow the mandatory procedure, prescribed by Ss. 110 and 111 Cr. P C. , the order passed consequently cannot be a legal order and as such the question of considering whether it is an irregularity or not-as has been done by the Sessions Judge-does not arise at all. She urged that the proceedings of the lower Courts are vitiated. ( 5 ) SEC. 110 and 111 Cr. P C. , the order passed consequently cannot be a legal order and as such the question of considering whether it is an irregularity or not-as has been done by the Sessions Judge-does not arise at all. She urged that the proceedings of the lower Courts are vitiated. ( 5 ) SEC. 110 Crlpc lays down specifically that a Magistrate may in the manner hereinafter provided require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit. The manner provided is laid down in S. lll Cr. P. C. which reads as follows :"111. Order to be made.-When a Magistrate acting under S. 107, s. 108, S. 109 and S. 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. "s. 112 Cr. P. C. prescribes that if the person in respect of whom such order is made is present in Court, it shall be read over to him, or, if he so desires, the substance thereof shall be explained to him. It is thereafter that the Magistrate can exercise his powers under S. 110 (f) (i) (e) cr. P. C. The records show and the same is the observation of the learned sessions Judge, that no order under S. 111cr. P. C. has been made. When the law prescribes that such an order under S. 111cr. P. C has to be made before proceeding further in exercise of the powers vested in a Magistrate by Sec. 110 Crlpc, it cannot be held that failure to observe such a statutory provision is not a serious irregularity as opined by the learned Sessions Judge. There cannot be a final order of binding over a person for good behaviour for a specific period under S. 110 Cr. P. C. without an order under S. 111cr. P. C. being passed in the first instance. When that is so, the contention of Smt. Anasuya has to succeed. There cannot be a final order of binding over a person for good behaviour for a specific period under S. 110 Cr. P. C. without an order under S. 111cr. P. C. being passed in the first instance. When that is so, the contention of Smt. Anasuya has to succeed. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated 10-11-1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Misc. Criminal appeal No. 6 of 1976 and the order dated 16-1-1976 passed by the Judicial magistrate First Class, Bhalki, in C. C. No. 29/3 of 1976 are set aside as the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are vitiated. --- *** --- .