Referable question of law fails where challenges were unraised before the Tribunal and the core finding was factual.

Questions not raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with in its appellate order did not arise from that order, so the alleged inadmissibility of statements and the effect of the FIR were not referable. The remaining challenge concerned the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner owned the contraband and was involved in acquiring, keeping, concealing or dealing with it; that conclusion was based on appreciation of evidence and was a finding of fact, not a question of law. No referable question of law therefore arose, and both reference petitions were dismissed in limine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions sought to be referred arose from the Tribunal's order and whether any question of law emerged from the Tribunal's factual findings.

Analysis: The questions based on the alleged inadmissibility of statements and the effect of the FIR had not been urged before the Tribunal and were not dealt with in its appellate order, so they did not arise out of that order. The remaining questions challenged the Tribunal's conclusion that the petitioner was the owner of the contraband and was concerned in acquiring, keeping, concealing or dealing with it. That conclusion was reached on appreciation of evidence and was a finding of fact, not a question of law fit for reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose; both reference petitions were dismissed in limine.

---