Statutory reference requires a question arising from the Tribunal's order; disputed factual findings do not become questions of law.

A statutory reference can be made only on a question that actually arises from the Tribunal's order; issues based on the FIR, the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) were not argued before the Tribunal and therefore were not referable. The Tribunal's conclusion that the petitioner owned the contraband and was concerned in its acquisition, concealment and dealing was based on appreciation of the record and was a finding of fact. A disputed factual inference does not by itself create a question of law. The reference petitions therefore failed because the first set of questions lay outside the appellate order and the remaining questions were factual.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether questions not raised before the Appellate Tribunal could be said to arise from its order for reference to the High Court. (ii) Whether the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was the owner of the contraband and was concerned in its acquisition, concealment and dealing gave rise to a referable question of law.

Issue (i): Whether questions not raised before the Appellate Tribunal could be said to arise from its order for reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The questions based on the alleged bar arising from the FIR, the Evidence Act, and Article 20(3) were not urged before the Tribunal and were not dealt with in its appellate order. A question which was neither argued nor considered below cannot be treated as arising out of the Tribunal's order for the purpose of a statutory reference.

Conclusion: The questions did not arise out of the Tribunal's order and were not referable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was the owner of the contraband and was concerned in its acquisition, concealment and dealing gave rise to a referable question of law.

Analysis: The remaining questions challenged the Tribunal's conclusion on ownership, conscious possession, and the petitioner's connection with the contraband. That conclusion was reached on appreciation of the material on record and constituted a finding of fact. No legal question arose merely because the petitioner disputed the factual inference drawn by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The finding was one of fact and did not give rise to a question of law.

Final Conclusion: The petitions for reference failed, as the first set of questions was outside the Tribunal's order and the remaining questions were factual in character.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory reference lies only on a question arising from the Tribunal's order, and a pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence does not become a question of law merely because it is disputed.

---