Factual appreciation and retracted statements cannot be turned into referable questions of law in gold confiscation matters.

Reference jurisdiction was unavailable because the questions raised were factual in nature. The challenge to the voluntariness and retraction of the statements did not disclose a referable question of law, as the Tribunal had already considered arrest, custody, production before the Magistrate, alleged coercion, and the retraction, and had recorded reasons for accepting the statements. The objections to the purity, foreign origin, confiscation, and penalty in relation to the gold likewise sought reappreciation of evidence rather than the identification of any legal issue. A retracted inculpatory statement can still be relied on if the authority considers the retraction and gives reasons for accepting the statement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged omission to consider certain factual submissions, including the voluntariness and retraction of the applicant's statements, gave rise to a referable question of law; (ii) Whether the findings on the purity and foreign origin of the gold, and the consequent confiscation and penalty, disclosed any question of law fit for reference.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged omission to consider certain factual submissions, including the voluntariness and retraction of the applicant's statements, gave rise to a referable question of law.

Analysis: The record showed that the Tribunal had considered the submissions regarding arrest, custody, production before the Magistrate, alleged coercion, and retraction. The validity and voluntariness of the statements had been dealt with in the earlier order, and the plea that material facts were ignored was not borne out. The challenge essentially required reappreciation of evidence and turned on factual controversy. A mere retraction did not, by itself, render a statement involuntary; the authority had already addressed the retraction and given reasons for accepting the statement.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings on the purity and foreign origin of the gold, and the consequent confiscation and penalty, disclosed any question of law fit for reference.

Analysis: The objections to the inference from high purity, markings on the gold, and the rejection of the defence version were matters of appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal's conclusions were based on the statements accepted as voluntary and on the surrounding circumstances. The questions raised sought to reopen factual findings under the guise of law, and the reference jurisdiction could not be used for that purpose.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the findings on the gold's origin, confiscation, or penalty.

Final Conclusion: The applications for reference failed because the issues raised were factual in nature and the Tribunal had already applied its mind to the material and retraction; accordingly, the request for reference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A question framed as one of law is not referable where it merely challenges factual appreciation, and a retracted inculpatory statement may still be acted upon if the authority has considered the retraction and recorded reasons for accepting it.

---