rostrums and for supply of power for loudspeakers cannot be deemed to be assistance for the furtherancee of the prospects of that candidate's election. 109. The respondent contended that Exhibit 118 which was the Bank account of the District Congress Committee showed on the one hand that there was deposit of Rs.69,930/- on 4th March, 1971 and on the other there was a withdrawl of Rs.40,000/- on 4th March, 1971 and of Rs. 25,000/- on 6th March, 1971 and therefore, the sum of Rs.65,000/- should be added to the election expenses of the appellant. When it was put to Yashpal Kapur that the sums of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- were withdrawn by Dal Bahadur Singh, Yashpal Kapur said that he was not aware of it. There is no pleading in the election petition that the appellant authorised incurring expenditure by a political party. There is no pleading that any amount has been paid by the political party. There is no complaint in the petition about the sum of Rs.65,000/- or the sum of Rs.69,930/- Yashpal Kapur denied knowledge of Rs. 70,000/-. The appellant was not asked a single question. There is no evidence to identify any of these payments with the election of the appellant. 110. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to the amendment which was introduced by the Amendment Act. 1974. The appellant relies on the provision to show that expenses incurred or authorised by a political Party cannot be included in election expenses. Explanation I which was inserted at the end of Section 77 of the 1951 Act by Amendment Act, 1974 is that any expenditure incurred or authorised in connection with the election of a candidate by a politcal party or by any other association or body of persons or by an individual other than the candidate or his election agent shall not be deemed to be and shall not ever be deemed to have been expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by the candidate or by his election agent. 111. A proviso was also added to the aforesaid Explanation I by the Amendment Act, 1974. The proviso stated that nothing contained in the Explanation shall affect (a) any judgement, order or decision of the Supreme Court whereby the election of a candidate to the House of the People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974; (b) any judgement, order or decision of a High Court where-by the election of any such candidate has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the said Ordinance if no appeal has been preferred to the Supreme Court against such judgment, order or decision of the High Court before such commencement and the period of limitation for filing such appeal has expired before such commencement. 112. Explanation 2 which was added to Section 77 of the 1951 Act by the Amendment Act. 1974 is as follows:— “For the purposes of Explanation I “political party” shall have the same meaning as in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order. 1968, as for the time being in force.” 113. Counsel for the respondent relied on the recent decision of this Court in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amarnath Chawla, AIR 1975 SC 308 in support of the proposition that there has been no change in law and if expenses incurred by a political party can be identified with the election of a candidate then that expenditure is to be added to the election expenses of a candidate as being authorised by him. There are no findings by the High Court in the present appeals