JUDGMENT- D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Shri Meghe, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Sundaram, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant Union of India. 2.This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dt. 13th June, 1992 passed by the Deputy Commandant (Magistrate First Class), III Battalion C.R.P.F., Nagpur whereby the applicant-accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 10(m) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 on admission of the guilt by the applicant-accused, as well as the order dated 14-12-1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 54/92 whereby the above referred order of the trial Court came to be confirmed. 3.The applicant was serving as a Constable in III Battalion C.R.P.F. Nagpur. In the month of April 1992, he received communication about ill-health of his daughter and, therefore, he proceeded on leave from 15-4-1992 to 27-4-1992. The said leave was granted and sanctioned to the petitioner by the concerned authorities. The applicant, however, could not resume his duty on 28-4-1992 because of his own ill-health. Since the applicant was sick from 22-4-1992, he could not inform about the same to the concerned officer. On 7-6-1992, the applicant resumed his duties. The applicant thereafter was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class C.R.P.F., Nagpur. The charge under section 10(m) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 came to be framed against the applicant on the ground of absence/overstaying from leave w.e.f. 28-4-1992 without prior permission of the competent authority and remained absent/overstayed w.e.f. 28-4-1992 to 7-6-1992. The applicant pleaded guilty to the said charge. However, the learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of prosecution witnesses and held that the applicant overstayed for 41 days without prior permission of the competent authorities and the applicant himself admitted the guilt for the offence punishable under section 10(m) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class awarded sentence and directed the applicant to suffer S.I. for 10 days. 4.Shri Meghe, the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the requirement of section 251 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, neither framed the charge properly nor explained to the applicant the particulars thereof and, therefore, the applicant did not understand the purport of the charge which was framed by the Magistrate against the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant in his statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code pointed out to the Magistrate that he could not resume his duties on the given date since he was sick. The applicant has also submitted the certificate issued by the competent Medical Practitioner in respect of his ill-health and, therefore, for want of proper charge under section 10(m) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949, serious prejudice is caused to the applicant-accused and under bona fide misconception the admission of guilt came to be recorded by the learned Magistrate. The learned Counsel therefore, contended that both the impugned orders are misconceived and are also not sustainable in law. 5.Shri Sundaram, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant supported both the impugned orders and contended that the trial Court has properly framed charge under section 10(m) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and the same was also correctly explained to the applicant and the same was properly understood by him. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class thereafter recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also recorded the statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and it is only thereafter the conviction under section 10(m) of the C.R.P.F. Act came to be recorded by the trial Court. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the procedure adopted and the charge framed by the trial Court is just and proper. The learned Counsel further contended that the lower Appellate Court has taken into consideration all these aspects and rightly dismissed the appeal of the applicant. 6.Before I consider the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the contentions advanced by the respective parties, it will be appropriate to consider the provision of section 10(m) of C.R.P.F. Act which read thus: "Every member of the force who absents himself without leave or without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to 3 months' pay or with both." There are two categories of offence contemplated by the above referred section: (1) A member of armed force who absents himself without leave; and (ii) without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the relevant facts involved in the instant case in order to find out whether the offence alleged against the applicant falls within the ambit of category 1 or 2 of the provisions of section 10(m) of the said Act. It is not disputed that the concerned authorities have sanctioned and granted leave to the applicant from 15-4-1992 to 27-4-1992 and the applicant was required to resume his duties on 28-4-1992. However, because of illness the applicant could not resume his duties on 28-4-1992 and resumed his duties on 7-6-1992 and, therefore, he has overstayed for 41 days than the leave granted to him. On the basis of this admitted position the case of the applicant would squarely fall or would come to the second category of offence contemplated under section 10(m) of the Act i.e. "without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him". However, the charge framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate against the applicant reads thus: "That you were absent/overstaying from leave w.e.f. 28-4-1992 without prior permission of competent authority. You remained absent/overstayed w.e.f. 28-4-1992 to 7-6-1992. Thus, you have committed offence under section 10(m) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force." The Judicial Magistrate, First Class has not properly and correctly framed charge for the offence punishable under section 10(m) of the Act. In the instant case, there is no question of remaining absent or overstaying w.e.f. 28-4-1992 without prior permission of the competent authority and the only relevant factor is whether the applicant without sufficient cause overstayed leave granted to him. It is not disputed that the applicant produced medical certificate issued by the competent medical practitioner about his illness and he has stated in the statement recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code that he could not resume duties at the relevant time since he was sick and, therefore, the charge against the applicant ought to have been specifically framed that without sufficient cause the applicant overstayed than the leave granted to him and same ought to have been explained to the applicant and since the applicant had contended that he could not resume his duties since he was sick, then the Court was required to take into consideration the sufficiency of the cause. However, in the instant case framing of incorrect charge against the applicant resulted in causing grave prejudice to the rights of the applicant. 7.The learned Magistrate ought to have framed the charge in a manner provided hereinabove by me and further ought to have read out to the applicant all the substance of accusations and also explained to the accused the implication of his pleading guilty. In the instant case, as contemplated by section 10(m) of the Act, the charge is not properly framed and substance of accusation have also not been properly explained to the accused and, therefore, it is difficult for me to accept the plea of guilt in the instant case. 8.The lower Appellate Court also misguided itself by not looking into the procedure prescribed under the Code. For the reasons stated above, both the impugned orders, in my opinion, are misconceived devoid of any substance and unsustainable in law. 9.In the result, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 14-12-1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 54/92, and the judgment and order dated 13-6-1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, C.R.P.F., Nagpur in Case No. 1/92 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, C.R.P.F., Nagpur who is directed to proceed from the stage of framing of appropriate charge against the accused. Revision application allowed. -----