Emergency order service irregularity waived; supervisory interference with sentence refused absent illegality or clear error of principle.

An emergency order under the Emergency Powers Ordinance was upheld despite service on the accused outside the district, because the empowering notification was read as authorising each District Magistrate within his district and any irregularity was waived when the accused accepted and obeyed the order without challenge; the Ordinance also prevented questioning the validity of such proceedings. The sentence for deliberate disobedience was not interfered with in superintendence, as interference was confined to illegality or a clear error of principle, and the Magistrate could consider deterrence and local conditions. The majority left the conviction and sentence undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Magistrate's order made under the Emergency Powers Ordinance was invalid because it was served on the accused while he was outside the district. (ii) Whether the sentence imposed for deliberate disobedience of the order called for interference in the exercise of superintendence.

Issue (i): Whether the District Magistrate's order made under the Emergency Powers Ordinance was invalid because it was served on the accused while he was outside the district.

Analysis: The majority held that the notification investing District Magistrates with powers under the Ordinance could be read as conferring authority on each District Magistrate within his own district, and in any event any irregularity in service outside the district was waived when the accused accepted and obeyed the order for a period without challenging it. The Ordinance also barred calling the validity of proceedings or orders into question, so the order had to be treated as duly made.

Conclusion: The order was not vitiated by the manner of service and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for deliberate disobedience of the order called for interference in the exercise of superintendence.

Analysis: The majority held that although superintendence could extend to sentence, interference was warranted only where there was illegality or a clear error of principle. The accused deliberately disobeyed the order, gave no assurance of future obedience, and the Magistrate was entitled to consider deterrence and local conditions. Reference to an unproved circumstance was treated as immaterial to the sentence actually imposed. The dissenting judge would have interfered on the ground that the sentence was disproportionately severe and that irrelevant considerations appeared to have affected it.

Conclusion: No ground for revisional interference with the sentence was made out.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed, and the application for revision was rejected by the majority.

Ratio Decidendi: In supervisory jurisdiction, an order under an emergency public-safety ordinance will not be disturbed for a technical irregularity that has been waived, and a lawful sentence will not be interfered with unless the sentencing court has committed an illegality or a clear error of principle in the exercise of discretion.

---