UNDER IPC

A public worker may not make an illegal purchase or bid on property under Section 169 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section expands on the provisions of Code Section 168. Property
sold by a public servant in his official role is the only kind covered by this provision. This is
predicated on the idea that he will be able to sway the transaction in his favour if he is given
preference over the opposing party.However, this clause does not apply if the public servant's
position is unrelated to the transaction and he is not acting in his official capacity when making
the purchase or bid. A police officer's purchase of an impounded pony at auction23 and a District
Board member's purchase of a buffalo at auction both fall beyond the scope of this provision.

In R. SaiBharathi v. J. Jayalalitha26, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a public servant is
prohibited from unlawfully purchasing or bidding for property under section 169 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, but that this prohibition must flow from enacted law or rules/regulation
framed there under. No order from the president could ever be regarded a law. Therefore, the
Governor's code of conduct establishing standards for ministers' behaviour lacks statutory
authority and cannot be enforced in court. Therefore, the Chief Minister may legally acquire
property from a government-owned corporation. As a result, the prosecution's case under Section
169 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is likely to be dismissed.

To prevent the overthrow of the Narsimha Rao Government in the case of P.V. NarsimhaRaov.
State30, Sibu Soren & Suraj Mandal embezzled funds. Politicians are expected to ensure the
financial stability of their parties while also protecting themselves and their families from the
future's unknowns. As a result, ties between government officials and criminal organisations
strengthened.

Bribery is defined as "the giving or accepting of a gratification, either as a motive or reward, to

any person, to induce him to stand or not stand as a candidate, to withdraw from the contest, or to
vote or not vote at an election" in Section 171 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, "offer" or "agreement to offer" or "offer
and attempt to procure" a gratification are also covered. We are not limiting ourselves to
monetary or monetary-equivalent forms of satisfaction.
The Supreme Court ruled in Pillaiv. Dangali33 that it is a bribe for a politician to pay off a club's
debt and renovate the club's facilities in the hopes that the club's voters will cast their ballots for
the candidate. The briber's intent is what matters, not the outcome.

Also, in Shanti Lal v. State34, the accused candidate for election orders his agent to financially
induce his opponent to drop out of the race. The agent then makes a sizable offer to the opponent
on the condition that he not run. According to the Indian Supreme Court, the accused's actions
meet the criteria for bribery as set forth in Section 171-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

(H.V. Kamath v. Nihal Singh35).

The Supreme Court has already ruled that even a little act of bribery committed by or with the
knowledge and cooperation of the candidate or by his agent renders an election null and void

Deepak GanpatraoSalunke v. State of Maharashtra36

THIS is an exception to this rule. In this case, the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra
promised to accredit a member of the Republican Party of India as Deputy Chief Minister of
State if the RPI supported his alliance in the upcoming parliamentary election. It was decided
that the statement in question did not constitute bribery as defined by Section 171-B of the Indian
Penal Code because it did not make any kind of offer to anyone. Nothing in the statement should
be interpreted as encouraging any particular kind of voting behaviour. So, under Section 171-B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, offering a political party a piece of the political power in
exchange for their support during an election campaign is not considered gratification.

Election petition filed in Govind singh v. HarchandKaur37 alleges returning candidate engaged
in corrupt practise by improperly authorising pension payments to the elderly and the disabled.
Since the High Court found that the evidence relied on by the prosecution was insufficient to
support the charge of corrupt practises even by a preponderance of probability, the appeal was
granted. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed a High Court ruling that invalidated the
appellant's election.

The food adulteration prevention act 1954

Article 21 was interpreted in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.,82 as including the right to ownership
of a person's bodily parts beyond his or her physical survival. When the right to life guarantees
the ownership of all bodily parts, it is impossible to claim that health is not a part of living.83The
Supreme Court of India, in Issar Das v. State of Punjab (1984), took the issue of food
adulteration very seriously, stating that "adulteration of food is a menace to public health and the
Statute had been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evils and for ensuring purity
in the articles of food." Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana,85 decided just a few years ago, reached
a similar conclusion: that food adulteration is a threat to society and that those responsible should
not be given a pass. Considering the potential negative impact on public health, the court ruled
that the accused could not be granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958.
No sincere effort was made by the food inspector in Dwarik Prasad v. State of Assam,86 to
ensure the presence of independent witness, and the sample is taken with only his following peon
present. So The Court ruled that the accused's conviction for selling tainted food was wrong
since doing so would violate their constitutional rights.

Adulteration, as defined by the Supreme Court in NandLal v. State of Uttrakhand&Anr.,87,

involves the addition of a new drug or the use of a substance of the same sort but lower grade.
Adulteration and the intent to sell are both necessary elements of a criminal offence involving
food or drink. The irreparable harm that is done to public health by the adulteration of food,
pharmaceuticals, and other consumables. These public health infractions are criminalised by the
Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954, and the
Food Safety and Standard Act of 2006. As prices and living expenses continue to grow,
shoppers are becoming more cautious and thrifty. Unsavoury merchants capitalise on the
situation by selling tainted food, drink, medicine, and other goods at a reduced price.

They will even go so far as to deliberately contaminate food and drink with harmful chemicals.
False alcoholic beverages and tainted foods are blamed for a number of annual deaths.89 Laws
have not been able to stop the problem of food adulteration, despite the fact that it is illegal under
the Indian Penal Code (1860), the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (1954), and the Food
Safety and Standards Act (2006). The provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pertaining to
the adulteration of food stuffs and pharmaceuticals are worth discussing in greater depth. In the
case of Rajiv Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1991), the Supreme Court found that
Rajnigandha Pan Masala contained magnesium carbonate, a banned substance, despite the
company's false claims to the contrary in its newspaper ads and licence application. Since a
thorough investigation could not be conducted without the consent of the board of directors, it
was determined that doing so would serve the public interest.