Limited second-appeal review bars interference with factual findings, but penalty may be reduced where justice so requires.

In a statutory second appeal confined to questions of law, the High Court declined to disturb the Board's factual and evidentiary findings because no substantial basis was shown for interference. On penalty, the Court considered the accepted contraventions and held that the minimum penalty was sufficient in the circumstances, reducing the penalty from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 5,000. The reported principle is that concurrent factual findings are not ordinarily interfered with in second appeal, but the quantum of penalty may be reduced where justice so requires.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere with the Board's findings in second appeal under the limited jurisdiction conferred by the statute. (ii) Whether the penalty required reduction to meet the ends of justice.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere with the Board's findings in second appeal under the limited jurisdiction conferred by the statute.

Analysis: The appellate jurisdiction was confined to questions of law, so the findings recorded by the Board on the factual and evidentiary aspects were not open to routine interference in second appeal. No substantial basis was shown for upsetting those findings.

Conclusion: The findings of the Board were not interfered with.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty required reduction to meet the ends of justice.

Analysis: On the facts accepted by the Board, the Court considered the penal consequence imposed for the established contraventions and found that the minimum penalty would be sufficient in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 5,000.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Board's factual findings failed, while the penalty was reduced to the minimum considered just and proper.

Ratio Decidendi: In a statutory second appeal confined to questions of law, concurrent factual findings are not ordinarily disturbed, but the appellate court may interfere with the quantum of penalty where justice so requires.

---