Order.- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10th November, 1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Misc. Crl.A. No. 6 of 1976 modifying the order dated 16th January, 1976 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhalki, in C.C.No. 29/3 of 1976, directing the 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 16th January, 1976 the police produced the petitioner before the said Magistrate and pieced information to the effect that the petitioner had been convicted in C.C. No. 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 section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and further on, that on 3rd September, 1974 he was found exporting rice from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra via Karanataka and when C.W. 2 the Sub-Inspector of Police chased him, he (C.W. 2) was assaulted and a case in Crime No. 2 of 1974 under sections 279, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code read with Clause 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 section 110(f) (i)(e), Criminal Procedure Code 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 C.C. No. 8/3/74 and fined Rs. 100 I.D. for seven days, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Basavakalyan, and that on 3rd September, 1974 at about 10-00 A.M. you were found exporting rice in your jeep from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra State vi.a Karnataka without permit and that when the P.S.I., Aurad, chased you in Police jeep, you evaded your arrest by moving from Kushnur to Sangam, Ambesangvi cross, Halberga, Bhakli and Hulsur and that when the said P.S.I. caught you at Hulsur you had assaulted him and caused injuries and hence a case in Crl. No. 72/74 under section 279/332/353, Indian Penal Code and. Clause 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 section 110(f)(i)(a), Criminal Procedure Code". Plea of the Accused. 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 accused 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 sections 110 and 111 Criminal Procedure Code had not been complied with. The learned Sessions Judge concluded that the provisions of section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, 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. 3. Smt. G.S. Anasuya, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that under section 110(f), Criminal Procedure Code, a Magistrate has to follow the procedure prescribed thereafter and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have passed an order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, 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 sections 110 and 111, Criminal Procedure Code, 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. 4. She urged that the proceedings of the lower Courts are vitiated. 4. Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, 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 section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as follows: "111. Order to be made.-When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 and section 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." Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, 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 excercise his powers under section 110(f) (i)(e), Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The records show and the same is the observations of the learned Sessions Judges, that no order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made. When the law prescribes that such an order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code has to be made before proceeding further in exercise of the powers vested in a Magistrate by section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, 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 section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, without an order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, being passed in the first instance. When that is so, the contention of Smt. Anasuya has to succeed. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated 10th November, 1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Misc. Crl.A.No. 6 of 1976 and the order dated 16th January, 1976 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhalki, in. When that is so, the contention of Smt. Anasuya has to succeed. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated 10th November, 1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Misc. Crl.A.No. 6 of 1976 and the order dated 16th January, 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.