applicable the effect is that wherever the word defined is used in that provision, the definition of the word gets substituted. Reading the word ‘‘ candidate’’ in Section 123 (7) in the sense in which it has been defined as a result of the amendment made by Act 40 of 1975, the only reasonable inference is that the person referred to as a candidate in that clause should be a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at an election and not one who is yet to be nominated. (Para 218) Per Mathew, J. : – There can be no doubt that Section 100 (1) (b), when it speaks of commission of corrupt practice by a returned candidate, it can only mean commission of corrupt practice by a candidate before he became a returned candidate. Any other reading of the subsection would be absurd. But there is no such compulsion to read the word ‘candidate’ in Section 123 (7) in the same manner. It is the context that gives colour to a word. A word is not crystal clear, Section 79 of the Act indicates that the definitions therein have to be read subject to the context. The legislature must fix some point of time before which a person cannot be a ‘candidate’ in an election and a wide latitude must be given to the legislature in fixing that point. (Paras 384, 385) In the instant case it was held that the returned candidate became candidate only on the date of filing of her nomination paper. (Para 387) Per Beg. J. : – The corrupt practice defined in Section 123 (7) could not be committed by any person before there was a ‘candidate’ for an election. (Para 409) A holding out as a ‘candidate’ within the meaning of Section 79 (b) must be by declaration of the candidate to an elector or to the electorate in a particular constituency and not to others. There is a gap between intent and action which has to be filled by proof of either statements or of conduct which amount to unequivocal declarations made to voters in the constituency in order to amount to a ‘‘holding out’’ to them. Absence of proof of a desire to change the constituency is not proof of a positive ‘‘holding out’’. What is relevant is not what other people think or say about what a possible candidate would do, but what the candidate concerned himself has said or done, so as to amount to ‘a holding out’ as a candidate by the candidate from a particular constituency. (Case law discussed). (Paras 449, 452, 457) In any case, if there was any uncertainty at all in the law, it has been removed by amendment of Section 79 (b) by Section 7 of Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 40 of 1975. According to the amended definition ‘candidate’ means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. (Para 458)