Wilful disobedience of summons not proved where service was inadequate and circumstances did not show deliberate non-compliance.

Leave to appeal against acquittal was declined where the alleged wilful disobedience of summons under foreign exchange law was not established. Liability required proper service and a deliberate refusal to comply, but the record showed no personal service on the respondent and service on counsel only shortly before the scheduled appearance. The short interval, together with the respondent's custody status or recent release, made same-day attendance unrealistic. The surrounding circumstances also did not show an intention to obstruct investigation, so no illegality or infirmity justified interference with the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal was liable to be granted on the allegation that the respondent wilfully disobeyed summons issued under the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The summons had to be served and the disobedience had to be wilful before liability could arise. The record showed that service was not effected on the respondent personally and that the summons were served on his counsel shortly before the time fixed for appearance. The time gap was too short for the respondent, who was in jail or had just been released, to appear at the office on the same evening. The surrounding circumstances also did not establish a deliberate intention to hamper investigation. The acquittal therefore disclosed no illegality or infirmity warranting interference.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was declined and the acquittal was upheld.

---