channel or cover for expenses incurred by the candidate himself. This explains the exclusion of expenses for "general party propaganda" from those for which the candidate is accountable and liable. Such expenses could be, it was held, properly incurred by the party itself, irrespective of the source from which the party obtained funds for carrying it on. What is declared to be expense incurred by the candidate is that expense which his party may incur either as an express or implied agent of the candidate and that only. 493. The difficulty which faces the election petitioner at the outset in taking up a case of implied authorisation, on the strength of anything observed or decided by this Court in Kanwarlal Gupta's case (AIR 1975 SC 308) (supra) is that no such case was set up here. The petition does not say that the local Congres (R) Party was really an express or implied agent of the original respondent or that it had acted in a manner from which it could be inferred that the funds were really being supplied by the original respondent and were merely being spent by the party or its workers for the election under consideration. No facts or circumstances were at all indicated either in the petition or in evidence from which such inferences were possible. On the other hand what is sought to be pointed out now in the case before us is that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was shown to have been received from some undisclosed sources by Shri Dal Bahadur Singh, the President of the District Congress Committee at Rae Bareily, and that a large part of it was shown, from entries in the bank account of the President of this Committee, to have been disbursed during or soon after the election. The responsibility of the District Congress Committee was, however, to carry on propaganda and supply information in 3 Parliamentary Constituencies. Neither party summoned Shri Dal Bahadur Singh to give evidence so that it could not be proved what proportion of any of this sum of Rs. 70,000/- was spent and in what work and for which of the 3 Parliamentary constituencies. All that was alleged, in paragraph 13 of the petition, is that the "expenditure incurred by the respondent No. 1, Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and/or her election agent Shri Yashpal Kapur was much more than Rs. 35,000/- which was the permissible amount". After that particulars of 11 items were given, out of which the first was hiring of 32 vehicles whose numbers are mentioned. There is no mention whatsoever in this list of any sum paid either by the original respondent or by anyone else on her behalf to Shri Dal Bahadur Singh or of any expense incurred on behalf of the original respondent by this gentleman. The principle that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a case not set up is sufficient to dispose of this evidence of a cheque of Rs. 70,000/- received by Shri Dal Bahadur Singh. 494. It is true that the case set up is that the prescribed limit of expenditure was exceeded and the case is so stated that items beyond the list could conceivably be added. Nevertheless, unless and until there is a plea that whatever was spent by the Congress (R) Party either as an express or implied agent of the original respondent, this loop-hole left in the petition would not suffice. Section 83 (1) (b) of the Act contains the mandatory provisions that the petition "shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt