ORDER : G.N. Ray, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27-3-1987 passed by the learned Designated Court for Rajasthan at Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1985. The appellant Jagjeet Singh @ Ammilal and one Balbir Singh were tried before the said Designated Court for an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA"). From the possession of the appellant Jagjeet Singh, an audio cassette was recovered. Such audio cassette was in Gurmukhi language and the translation in Hindi has been indicated in the judgment of the learned Designated Court. There is no evidence that such cassette was played before the public for which any member of the public listening to the said cassette had an occasion to become restive or sensitive which was likely to de-establish the integrity and independence of the country. The learned Designated Judge has held that there is no pointed evidence that the accused Jagjeet Singh had given the cassette to any particular person but merely for the possession of the said cassette the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that the circumstances had shown that the said accused had committed an act preparatory to terrorists act and his act was preparatory to the disruptive activities also. What are the terrorist or disruptive activities have been indicated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 . Nothing has been found in the instant case as to whether any such activity had been resorted to. We may also indicate that on the said audio cassette a photograph of Guru Nanak was printed on one side and at the back it was printed that it contained Amar Vani. Therefore, from the apparent look of the cassette it also did not appear that it contained any exciting speech listening to which is likely to destabilise the society by bringing excitement to the large number of the members of the society. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason for convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA. It may be stated that the co-accused was acquitted by the learned Designated Judge. This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason for convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA. It may be stated that the co-accused was acquitted by the learned Designated Judge. This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. 2. The appellant has been released on bail. The bail bonds will stand discharged.