provided or any other act or thing done by any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clause (7) of Sec. 123 in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty as mentioned in the proviso to that clause shall not be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by a candidate or by his election agent for the purpose of Section 77 (1). The validity of the above explanation in a great measure is linked with the validity of the new proviso to Section 123 (7) of the RP Act, and for the reasons stated for upholding the proviso to Section 123 (7), the new explanation to Section 77, it seems, may have also to be upheld. It is not necessary to dilate upon this aspect because even without invoking the aid of the new explanation to Section 77, the High Court has found, and I see no reason to disturb that finding, that the total expenses incurred by the appellant were less than the prescribed limit. 239. Argument has also been advanced that validity of Act 40 of 1975 cannot be assailed on the ground that it strikes at the basic structure of the Constitution. Such a limitation, it is submitted, operates upon an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 but it does not hold good when Parliament enacts a statute in exercise of powers under Article 245 of the constitution. In view of my finding that the provisions of Act 40 of 1975 with which we are concerned have not been shown to impinge upon the process of free and fair elections and thereby to strike at the basic structure of the Constitution, it is not necessary to deal with the above argument. I would, therefore, hold that the provisions of Act 40 of 1975 with which we are concerned are valid and do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. 240. We may now deal with cross appeal No. 909 of 1975. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has not pressed the challenge to the findings of the High Court on issues 4 and 7. He has, however, assailed the finding of the High Court on issue No. 9 whereby the High Court held that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs. 31, 976.47. on her election as against the prescribed limit of Rs. 35,000. In Ex 5, Return of her election expenses, the appellant showed her total election expenses to be Rs. 12,892.97. The respondent in para 13 of the election petition alleged that the appellant and her election agent had incurred expenditure much beyond the prescribed limit of Rs. 35,000 and thereby committed corrupt practice under Section 123 (6) of the RP Act. The respondent gave some items of the expenditure which were alleged to have been incurred by the appellant and her election agent but were not shown in the return of the election expenses. The material items with which we are now concerned were as under: (i) The hiring charges of the vehicles specified in para 13 (1) .... over Rs. 1,28,700 (ii) Cost of petrol and diesel for the vehicles specified in para 13 (1) .... over Rs. 43,230 (iii) Payments made to the drivers of vehicles specified in para