S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23-5-1988 (Annexure P-1) of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandla. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, Smt. Godawaribai submitted an application under Section 6 of the M. P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) stating therein that her husband Ram Bharos had pledged a golden hasli of about 16 tolas with Shankarlal Patel, who was the original petitioner in this petition before 15-8-1982. It was also stated therein that the respondent No. 2 and her husband both were "marginal farmers" within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 23-5-1988 held that the respondent No. 2 was holding 1. 90 acres of agricultural land and therefore, she was a "marginal farmer". He also found that the transaction of pledge had taken place prior to 16-8-1982. He directed Shankarlal Patel to return the golden hasli to the respondent No. 2 on payment of Rs. 1,275/- and the interest. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for both the sides were heard. There is no finding in the impugned order that the land held by the respondent No. 2 is irrigated or unirrigated. The respondent No. 2 is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. According to Section 2 (g) (ii) of the Act, the "marginal farmer" means an agriculturist who holds agricultural land not exceeding half hectare, if irrigated or one hectare if unirrigated and who personally cultivates such land. The land held by the respondent No. 2 is more than half hectare. Therefore, she would come in the category of "marginal farmer", if 1. 90 acres of land held by her isunirrigated and if she personally cultivates such land. It was necessary for the Sub-Divisional Officer to record the finding on this point in order to bring the respondent No. 2 within the definition of "marginal farmer". ( 4 ) FURTHER, there is no provision in the Act enabling the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass an order directing the return of the pledged ornaments without conviction of the creditor under Section 4 (1) (ii) of the Act. Section 3 provides for the consequences to ensue on commencement of the Act. ( 4 ) FURTHER, there is no provision in the Act enabling the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass an order directing the return of the pledged ornaments without conviction of the creditor under Section 4 (1) (ii) of the Act. Section 3 provides for the consequences to ensue on commencement of the Act. One of the consequences as provided in Clause (f) of Section 3 is that every property pledged by a debtor shall stand released in favour of debtor and a creditor shall be bound to return the same to the debtor forthwith. Section 4 (1) (ii) further provides that no creditor shall refuse to return or redeliver possession to the debtor of the property pledged by him which stands released in favour of such debtor. The contravention of this provision is punishable under Section 4 (2) with imprisonment which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to one thousand rupees; or both. Section 6 further provides that the State Government may confer such powers and impose such duties on a Collector as may be necessary to ensure that the provisions of this Act are properly carried out and the Collector may specify an officer subordinate to him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties so conferred or imposed. ( 5 ) THE M. P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Niyam, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) have been framed in exercise of the powers under Section 8 of the Act. Rule 3 says that the debtor may report the fact of the commission of an offence under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 by the creditor to the Collector. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 further requires the Collector to obtain the information under sub-Rule (2) from the debtor. As per Rule 4, after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, if the Collector is "prima facie" satisfied about the commission of an offence by the creditor, the Collector may make or cause to be made a complaint in writing to the judicial magistrate authorised to take cognizance of the offence for proceeding against the offender. As per Rule 4, after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, if the Collector is "prima facie" satisfied about the commission of an offence by the creditor, the Collector may make or cause to be made a complaint in writing to the judicial magistrate authorised to take cognizance of the offence for proceeding against the offender. Rule 5 provides that if the creditor is convicted for contravention of the provisions of sub-section (i) of Section 4, the Collector shall serve a notice on such creditor requiring him within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, to return or deliver the possession to the debtor of the property pledged by him which stands released in favour of such debtor under the provisions of the Act. If such notice is not complied with within this period, the Collector shall restore or cause to be restored the possession of the property to the debtor. ( 6 ) THE scheme of the Act and the rules discussed above clearly show that the Sub-Divisional Officer could not directly pass an order for restoration of the pledged ornaments to the debtor. In case he was satisfied that the respondent No. 2 is a "marginal farmer" and the creditor has prima facie committed an offence under Section 4 (1) of the Act he could make a complaint to the judicial magistrate. It is only in case conviction by the judicial magistrate that the Sub-Divisional Officer would further take up the matter of restoration of the pledged ornaments to the debtor. ( 7 ) THIS petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-5-1988 of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to make further enquiry on the question whether the respondent No. 2 is a "marginal farmer" and whether the petitioners have prima facie committed an offence under Section 4 (i) of the Act. If he is also satisfied, he may make a complaint to the judicial magistrate as required by Rule 4 of the Rules. Petition allowed. .