MATADA RUDWAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned in this petition is one purported to have been made under Sec.5(9) of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976. Before I refer to this Section it is better if I set out the order here- under. It reads :

(2.) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as seen from the above order, directed the police to search and seize the article said to have been pledged by the debtor-respondent-3. That order was made on the application of respondent-3 who has complained before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the petitioner has refused to return the articles although he is debtor as defined under the Act. The complaint of the debtor appears to have been entertained by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and in exercise of his power under S.5(9) of the Act he made the impugned order. The question is whether that order is valid.

(3.) Sec.5(9) conferring power to search and seize the articles is in these terms :