Factual appreciation in gold purity disputes and technical breach penalty questions were treated as non-referable under the Gold Control Act.

Questions over variation in the purity of seized gold ornaments were treated as factual rather than legal, because the number of ornaments and their total weight remained unchanged and the purity difference was explained by the testing method used by officers. The penalty issue was also regarded as governed by precedent on technical breach of statutory requirements, with the tribunal's refusal to treat the infraction as merely negligible accepted. The reference was therefore treated as raising no referable question of law under the Gold Control Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proposed questions regarding discrepancy in purity of seized gold ornaments and the basis of confiscation raised any referable question of law under the Gold Control Act. (ii) Whether penalty could be said to be unwarranted on the ground that the infraction was only technical and involved a negligible discrepancy.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed questions regarding discrepancy in purity of seized gold ornaments and the basis of confiscation raised any referable question of law under the Gold Control Act.

Analysis: The material showed that the number of ornaments and their total weight remained unchanged on re-examination, while the variation was only in purity, which was explained by the method of testing adopted by the officers. The Tribunal had already examined the record and held that the grievance turned on appreciation of facts rather than a legal controversy suitable for reference.

Conclusion: The first set of questions was correctly treated as arising from pure findings of fact and was not referable.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be said to be unwarranted on the ground that the infraction was only technical and involved a negligible discrepancy.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the earlier Allahabad High Court view that a technical breach of the statutory requirements did not, on these facts, avoid penalty. The Court accepted that approach and found no error in the Tribunal's refusal to refer the question.

Conclusion: The challenge to penalty failed and the refusal to refer this question was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The reference disclosed no referable question of law and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy turns on factual appreciation already answered by the Tribunal, and the penalty issue is covered by an applied precedent on technical breach, no reference is warranted under the reference provision.

---