Factual findings and legal questions distinguished: inferred shortage and bona fides issues remain factual unless legal effect is in dispute

A finding remains one of fact even when it is drawn by inference from proved primary facts, and it does not become a question of law merely because it is inferred from evidence. The distinction applied was between a pure question of law, a mixed question of law and fact, and a factual conclusion. On that basis, shortage of gold, absence of bona fides, and alleged unauthorised parting with gold were treated as matters rooted in evidence and factual inference, while only pure legal issues or mixed questions involving the legal effect of proved facts were regarded as referable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could refer questions arising from its findings on shortage of gold, lack of bona fides, and alleged unauthorised parting with gold as questions of law; whether the finding of lack of bona fides and the inference of contravention were questions of fact or questions of law.

Analysis: The order held that the finding of shortage was based on appreciation of evidence and that the inference of unauthorised parting with gold followed from the proved shortage and the absence of a satisfactory explanation. It further applied the settled distinction between a pure question of law, a mixed question of law and fact, and a finding of fact, noting that a factual finding does not become a question of law merely because it is drawn by inference from primary facts. The order also treated the challenge to the Tribunal's finding on lack of bona fides as a challenge to a factual conclusion, not a legal issue capable of reference on that basis alone.

Conclusion: The questions framed were referred to the High Court, and the reference applications were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding remains one of fact even when it is an inference from basic facts, and only pure questions of law or mixed questions where the legal effect of proved facts is in issue are referable.

---