Mere membership of banned organisation is not enough for conviction without proof of active violence or incitement.

Mere membership of a banned organisation was held insufficient to sustain criminal liability unless the prosecution proved active participation, violence, incitement to imminent violence, or conduct showing a specific intent to further unlawful aims. The Court read the penal provisions narrowly to preserve constitutional validity and construed them consistently with Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On the evidence, the alleged confession was retracted and uncorroborated, and no other material linked the accused to violent or disorderly activity. The conviction was therefore unsustainable, and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a conviction could be sustained on the basis of mere membership of a banned organisation, without proof that the accused was an active member who resorted to violence, incited imminent violence, or engaged in conduct intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that penal provisions affecting fundamental rights must, if possible, be read down so as to preserve their constitutional validity. Relying on earlier authority, it held that mere membership of a banned organisation cannot by itself establish criminality unless there is proof of active participation, violence, incitement, or conduct showing a specific intent to further unlawful aims. The alleged confession was retracted and uncorroborated, and there was no other material connecting the appellant with any violent or disorderly activity. The Court also treated the impugned statutory provisions as requiring a construction consistent with Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable because mere passive membership was insufficient to attract criminal liability on the evidence available, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---