Statutory limits on gold possession and fact-based findings meant no referable question of law arose.

The Tribunal's rejection of competing ownership claims to seized gold was treated as a factual finding based on the evidence and surrounding circumstances, so no question of law arose. A certified goldsmith's entitlement to possess primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act was held to be subject to the statutory restrictions on acquisition, possession and use, and not an unrestricted right; no referable legal issue arose on that point. The Tribunal's fixation of redemption fine and penalty was a matter of discretion, interferable only if patently perverse or arbitrary, and its reliance on the appellant's statement was supported by other circumstances and treated as voluntary and trustworthy. The refusal to refer the questions was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's rejection of the claim of ownership over the seized gold raised any question of law. (ii) Whether a certified goldsmith had an unrestricted right to possess up to 300 grams of primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act. (iii) Whether the quantum of redemption fine, personal penalty, and reliance on the statement of the appellant gave rise to any question of law.

Issue (i): The rejection of the rival claims was based on appreciation of evidence and surrounding circumstances recorded by the Tribunal. The finding turned on facts proved on the record and not on any legal interpretation.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the Tribunal's finding rejecting the ownership claims.

Issue (ii): The entitlement of a certified goldsmith under Section 42 was held to be subject to the restrictions in Sections 8, 40 and 41. Possession of primary gold was not an absolute right and depended on compliance with the statutory conditions governing acquisition, possession and use.

Conclusion: No question of law arose on the plea that the certified goldsmith was entitled to retain the seized primary gold.

Issue (iii): The Tribunal's discretion on redemption fine and penalty could be interfered with only if shown to be patently perverse or demonstrably arbitrary. The statement relied upon by the Tribunal was also supported by other circumstances and was treated as voluntary and trustworthy.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the quantum of fine or penalty or from reliance on the statement.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to refer the proposed questions was upheld because the impugned order disclosed findings of fact and valid exercise of discretion, with no referable question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's conclusions rest on factual appreciation and statutory conditions govern the claimed right, no question of law arises for reference unless the finding is perverse, arbitrary, or unsupported by evidence.

---