that any expenses by a political party were authorised by the appellant. There is also no finding in the present appeals that any expenses incurred by a political party can be identified with the election of the appellant. The changes in law effected by the Amendment Acts, 1974 and 1975 totally repel the submissions on behalf of the respondent. Expenses incurred or authorised in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party 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. Furthermore the ruling in Kanwar Lal Gupta's case (supra) is no longer good law because of the legislative changes. 114. Counsel for the respondent contended that the judgment of the High Court should be reversed with regard to election expenses of the appellant on three counts. First, Exhibit 118 shows that the sum of Rs. 65,000/- which was drawn by the Congress Committee should have been held by the High Court on a reasonable inference to have been spent by the District Congress Committee as having been authorised by the election agent of the appellant. Second, the High Court has not taken into account expenses of the election agent at 12 meetings other than the meetings addressed by the appellant and has also not taken into account the telephone expenses of the election agent. The telephone expenses amounted to Rs. 836.85 between 11th january, 1971 and 10th Febraury, 1971 and a further sum of Rs.2,514/- for the period 11th Febraury, 1971 to 15th March, 1971. Third, it is said that there were 5000 polling booths and if 20 workers were required per booth then 10,000 workers would be required and the only inference is that an amount in excess was spent for workers with the authority of the election agent. 115. In Issue No. 9 there was no amount alleged with regard to telephone bills or election meetings under the heading of alleged election expenses. There was no allegation to that effect in the petition. With regard to expenses for the alleged 12 meetings addressed by the election agent the evidence of Yashpal Kapur is that he addressed about a dozen meetings and he did not include in the election return the expenses incurred for installation of loudspeakers because the expenditure was not incurred by him. He also said that he did not include in the election return the expenses incurred over the construction of platforms because the meetings were arranged by the District Congress Committee. No allegation were made in the petition with regard to any alleged sum of money on account of election meetings where the election agent spoke. The High Court rightly said that the telephone expenses and expenses for meetings could not be taken into consideration because no suggestion of the case was made until the stage of arguments. 116. The respondent’s submission is that the appellant was the Prime Minister at the time of the election, and therefore there was a big campaign and the expenses were enormous. That will mean little. Expenses incurred or authorised by a political party are under the Amendment Act, 1974 not to be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by the candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of Section 77 of the 1951 Act The part played by a political party in connection with candidates of the party at the election particularly in relation to expenditure incurred by the poltiical party with regard to candidates of the party has been the subject of some decisions of the Court. This Court has observed that expenditure must be by the candidate himself and any expenditure in his interest by others (not his agent within the meaning of the term of the Election Law is not to be taken note of. Where vehicles were engaged by the Congress