( 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 :"case called. Petitioner present. Respondent-1 present. . He states he is willing to pay back Rs. 30- It is a prima facie case of accepting that he has taken the items. I am satisfied that the respondent has either kept the articles somewhere or has disposed it. The police will search the "tamrada Handa" in the house. The police will also seize such pots which are similar and produce them before me on next hearing 1-10-1976. Respondent-2 appears. " ( 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 :" 5 (9 ). Notwithstanding anything in the preceding sub-section the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may. on application made by a debtor or otherwise, enter any premises of the creditor and search and seize articles pledged by debtors and arrange for their safe custody. Thereafter he shall proceed to determine which of the articles so seized, are to be released to the debtors and pass orders accordingly. "the scope of the above sub-section came up for consideration before this Court in K. A. Aswathanarayana Setty v. Sub Divisional magistrate, Madhugiri, (1977) 1 Karlj. 14 . Thereafter he shall proceed to determine which of the articles so seized, are to be released to the debtors and pass orders accordingly. "the scope of the above sub-section came up for consideration before this Court in K. A. Aswathanarayana Setty v. Sub Divisional magistrate, Madhugiri, (1977) 1 Karlj. 14 . : Bhimiah, J observed therein that the sub- section empowers the Sub-Divl Magistrate, on an application made by a debtor or otherwise to enter any premises of the creditor and search and seize articles pledged by the debtors and arrange for their safe custody but the learned Judge cautioned that that power of the Sub-Divl magistrate is only to seize the articles pledged by the debtors so as to arrange for their safe custody and to determine after enquiry which of the articles are to be released to the debtors. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the Sub-Divl Magistrate was satisfied on the complaint made and information imparted by the debtor that the creditor is unwilling to deliver the pledged article. If he had proceeded to search the house of the creditor, possibly no one would have found fault with. But he himself did not search. He directed the police to search and seize the article. The power to search and seize conferred by S. 5 (9) has been conferred upon the Divl Magistrate and not on the police. The Sub-Divl Magistrate cannot delegate that power to others unless the Act provides for delegation. The Karnataka Debt Relief Act does not provide for such delegation. Therefore, the action of the Sub- divl Magistrate directing the police to search and seize the article was clearly illegal and unauthorised. ( 5 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute, the impugned order is quashed, with liberty reserved to the Sub-Divl Magistrate to act in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .