M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order made by the special tahsildar and executive magistrate t. Narasipura taluk-respondent No. 2. As per Annexure-F , for the reasons set out in the petition. ( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way : petitioner filed a suit in o. s, No. 30/1975 onthe file of the court of munsiff, t. Narasipura taluk against the 3rd respondeut-chowdegowda, seeking to recover certain sum of money from 3rd respondent on the strength of an on demand pronote said to have been executed by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the said suit was decreed on 1-12-1978 and that the judgment and decree came to be confirmed in r. a. no. 7/1979 on the file of the court of the additional civil judge, mysore. The appeal filed by the 3rd respondent, came to be dismissed on 29-l-1983. ( 3 ) THERE after, the petitioner sued out execution petition No. 202/1983 on the file of the court of the munsiff, t, narasipura seeking to realise the decreetal amount from the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the said execution proceedings are pending. ( 4 ) THE stand taken by the defendant-3rd respondent in this suit was he was adebtor with in the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (the act for short ). In the course of the execution proceedings, the 3rd respondent again reiterated the stand before the executing court that he was a debtor within the meaning of the said act. It is slated that the learned munsiff, after holding an enquiry in the execution case, by providing an opportunity to both the parties of having heard, recorded a finding that the 3rd respondent was not a debtor and thus overruled the objections, by an order made on 18-1-1985, it is stated that, that order was not challenged by the 3rd respondent so far. ( 5 ) IN the execution proceedings, slated above, the civil court passed an order forarrest of the 3rd respondent and for detaining him in the civil prison. Accordingly, 3rd respondent was kept in civil prison from 8-1-1986 as per the order of the learned munsiff. ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned here that the 3rd respondent approached the specialt ahsildar and executive magistrate, t. Narasipura in proceedings No. 689/1978-79, seeking relief under the act. Accordingly, 3rd respondent was kept in civil prison from 8-1-1986 as per the order of the learned munsiff. ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned here that the 3rd respondent approached the specialt ahsildar and executive magistrate, t. Narasipura in proceedings No. 689/1978-79, seeking relief under the act. In that proceedings, the stand taken by the 3rd respondent was that he was a deblor within the meaning of the said act and that therefore, he was entitled to the relief sought for. ( 7 ) IT can be seen by a perusal of an application filed by Sri Chowdegowda-3rd respondent herein on 4-11-1978 before the tahsildar and executive magistrate, t. Narasipura, a copy of which is produced in W. P. No. 4482/1984 before this court that he soughl for the relief under the act. That application was rejected by the taluka executive magistrale on the sole ground that as there was a decree of the civil court against the applicant, he had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. That order made by the tahsildar on 15-7-1983 was challenged before this court in writ petition No. 4482/1984 and this court by another order dated 28lh january, 1985 allowed the writ petition in the following terms:"rule made absolute. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-B is set aside. The matter is remitted to the tahsildar to hold a fresh enquiry and dispose of the petilion in accordance with law after affording opportunities to both the parlies. No costs". ( 8 ) LATER, after holding an enquiry, the tahsildar, passed an order as perannexure-c on 13-2-1986 in proceedings No. 689/78-79. The operalive portion of the order reads as follows : ( 9 ) AGAIN, in order to seek compliance of the order made by the tahsildar on 13-2-1986, notices came to be issued to both the parties. The notices having been served upon the petitioner on several dates as referred to in the order Annexure-F dated 18-4-1986 she remain absent. Hence the tahsildar imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- payable by the petitioner as follows: ( 10 ) IT is this order that is called in question in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, for the reasons set out in the writ petition. Hence the tahsildar imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- payable by the petitioner as follows: ( 10 ) IT is this order that is called in question in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, for the reasons set out in the writ petition. ( 11 ) THE main contention urged by Sri L. S. Chikkanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned Order, imposing penalty of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner, is one without jurisdiction. The alternative contention is that the tahsildar-exccutive magistrate cannot impose by way of penalty, any amount of fine, as such power is not conferred upon him under the act. Hence, he has sought for quashing the order Annexure-F. I do not think, there is any force in the contention of the learned counsel. ( 12 ) SECTION 6 of the 1976 act reads as follows:"penalty : (1) any person failing to furnish the statement or to comply with the order made under Section 5 or otherwise contravening Provisions of Section 5 shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 months but which may extend to one year and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but which may extend to five thousand rupees". (2) every offence punishable under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable". ( 13 ) NOW again in 1980 Act, Section 8 provides as follows:"penalty : any person failing to furnish the statement under Section 4 or to comply with the order made or direction given under sections 4 or 5 or otherwise contravening the Provisions of either of the said sections shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees". ( 14 ) THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing Provisions of the two acts being operative in the field, the taluka executive magistrate is conferred with the power to enforce the Provisions of the act and to impose punishment as above against the creditor in case of his failure to comply with either the Provisions of sections 4 and 5 or any order made thereunder. Therefore, at the out set, I do not see any force in the submission of Sri L. S. Chikkanagoudar. Therefore, at the out set, I do not see any force in the submission of Sri L. S. Chikkanagoudar. ( 15 ) SECONDLY, it is seen from the reasons assigned by the taluka executive magistrate in the impugned Order, Annexure-F , that despite opportunity, was given to the petitioner by issuing notice, he failed to appear before him and show cause for his absence and non-compliance of the direction issued by him under sections 4 and 5 of the act. ( 16 ) ANOTHER important feature that can be gathered in this case is despite the relief from indebtedness was granted under the act by the competent authority, respondent 3-chowdegowda bad to suffer imprisonment for no fault of him. That apart, as regards imposition of penalty against the petitioner, this is what the learned executive magistrate has observed in his order Annexure-F. ( 17 ) THE learned magistrate has observed that the petitioner had failed to file statement as required under the act for which he was fined earlier, that he never cared to pay the fine amount of Rs. 500/-, that though notice was issued several times, he did not appear before him and that thus he violated the order of the court. Thus observing, the learned magistrate again imposed a fine of Rs. 50/- against the petitioner and also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year under sections 6 and 8 of the acts respectively. ( 18 ) HAVING regard to the peculiar facts of the case and the conduct of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the learned magistrate was right in proceeding to pass the impugned order. I do not see any good ground to interfere with it. ( 19 ) IN the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Sri M. S. Sidda Gangaiah, hcgp is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents 1 and 2 in two weeks. --- *** --- .