Reference limited to a substantial question of law; factual issues and settled possession points were not referable.

Only a genuine substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order could be referred, so factual questions on conscious possession were not referable and the issue on the meaning of possession under the Gold (Control) Act did not survive because it had already been settled by binding precedent. The challenge to the Tribunal's reliance on the criminal court's findings required limited reconsideration in light of the applicable guidelines on the effect of criminal proceedings in confiscation matters, so the third question was reframed and referred to the High Court. The reference application was therefore allowed only in part, with the remaining proposed questions rejected or treated as not surviving.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application could succeed only to the extent of a reframed substantial question of law on the Tribunal's treatment of conscious possession and the effect of the criminal court's findings, while the other proposed questions either did not survive or were pure questions of fact.

Analysis: The proposed question relating to conscious possession was found to be factual in nature. The question on the meaning of possession under the Gold (Control) Act had already been settled by the High Court as conscious possession and therefore did not survive. The remaining question, insofar as it challenged the Tribunal's deference to the criminal court's finding, required reconsideration only in the light of the High Court's earlier guidelines on when findings in criminal proceedings may affect confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, only that limited issue was held fit for reference, and the third question was reframed in appropriate form.

Conclusion: The reference application was allowed only to the limited extent of referring the reframed question of law to the High Court; the remaining proposed questions were rejected or treated as not surviving.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal confined the statutory reference to one substantial question of law and declined to refer the rest, resulting in a partial allowance of the application.

Ratio Decidendi: In reference proceedings, only a genuine substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order can be referred, and factual issues or questions already settled by binding precedent are not referable.

---