Under Section 203 of the BNS, 2023, Q, a municipal corporation officer responsible for property disposal, is legally bound by his service regulations not to purchase corporation property during his tenure. Despite this legal prohibition, Q, using his personal friendship with an auctioneer, deliberately submits a bid for a condemned municipal building at an auction. Q bids under the name of his friend to avoid direct identification, though everyone at the auction knows about this arrangement. Q's bid is accepted and the property is transferred to his friend's name. Q later plans to register the property in his own name. Which of the following correctly determines Q's criminal liability under Section 203?

Explanation: Section 203 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 169 IPC) provides: "Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant, not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly, or simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated." The provision is explicit in its scope: it covers purchases made directly or indirectly through intermediaries. Q's attempt to circumvent the prohibition by bidding through his friend's name does NOT provide immunity. The phrase "in the name of another" specifically addresses this scenario. Additionally, the section provides for mandatory confiscationof the property if purchased, which is a significant consequence. The legal prohibition on Q's purchase derives from his service regulations (a lawful contractual/statutory constraint), and this is sufficient to trigger Section 203. No formal denial of permission is required; the legal binding itself is sufficient. Thus, option (B) correctly applies Section 203