The inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked in relation to a subject matter that has no connection with the criminal procedure or any penal law of the land.

S. Barman Roy, J.: By this application petitioner has prayed for releasing him on bail as he is detained in custody pursuant to an order issued by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his power under section 8B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

2. Initially this application was filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the Matter was heard partly on 12.4.2000, a supplementary affidavit was filed on his behalf on 17.4.2000 for inserting section 482 of the Code in place of section 439. It appears, therefore, that the petitioner could realise that in the circumstances of the case no order for bail can be passed in his favour under section 439 as the petitioner is not detained in custody in connection with any penal offence. Therefore, petitioner filed supplementary affidavit praying, inter alia, to treat this application as one under section 482 instead of treating the same as an application under section 439 of the Code.

3. At the very outset learned Counsel for the respondents raised an objection against the maintainability of this application on the ground that the petitioner is not concerned with any offence or any matter covered by the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, inherent power of this court under section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked. It is contended that the petition being not maintainable, it should be dismissed at the threshold without entering into the question of merit.

4. Petitioner is stated to be a Director of Assam Bidi Factory (Private) Limited having its head office at 13A Indra Roy Road, Calcutta -25. It is a company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 and it carries on business of manufacturing bidi under the brand name "Joy Hind Bidi". For better appreciation of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, it is considered necessary to give a brief outline of certain important provisions of the said Act. Section 2(aa) defines authorised officer to mean the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government by a notification in the official gazette. Sub-section 1(b) of section 7A of the Act further provides that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner or any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner or any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, by order, determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of the said Act, or the scheme or the pension scheme or the insurance scheme contemplated under the said Act, as the case may be and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary. Sub-section (2) of section 7 A further provides that the officer conducting inquiry under sub-section (1) thereof shall, for the purposes of such inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure for trying a suit in respect of some matters, namely, (a) enforcing attendance of any person or examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and any such inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of section 196 of I.P.C. From this provision it is, therefore, manifest that the officer conducting such inquiry is not at all court of law though it can exercise some of the powers, as set out above, vested in a court under the C.P.C. and that such inquiry is deemed to be a judicial proceeding only for the limited purpose of sections 193, 228 and for the purpose of section 196 I.P.C. In all other respects the officer conducting such inquiry is not a court of law nor such inquiry shall be deemed t