against expenditure by a candidate himself. Hence, the petitioner had not pleaded expenses incurred by the party of the original respondent as expenses authorised by the original respondent. The test of authorisation would naturally be the creation of a liability to reimburse whoever spends the money and not necessarily the provision of money before-hand by the candidate on whose behalf it is spent. Navertheless the authorisation has to be set up and proved. In the written statement field on behalf of the original respondent, it was very frankly admitted that some expenditure, incurred by the local Congress Party itself, had not been shown as election expenses of the candidate herself. This was the position because, on the side of the original respondent also, the law was understood to be as it is found now clarified by the addition of an explanation to Section 77(1) of the Act. 498. The second question which arises for consideration is; if some expenses are shown or admitted to have been incurred by the candidate's party or third persons over the election of the successful candidate, is it possible to separate it from a total expenditure on more than one constituency by some process of estimation and apportionment? Of course, this question can only arise if it is first proved that whatever expenditure was incurred by candidte's party or by some other person, who may be a friend, a relation, or a sympathiser was incurred in circumstances from which it can be inferred that the successful candidate would reimburse the party or person who incurred it. As I have already held, it is only then that expenditure could be held to be authorised by the candidate. It is not enough that some advantage accrued or expenditure was incurred within the knowledge of the candidate. This was very clearly brought out in Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnagh Singh (1955) 1 SCR 671=(AIR 1954 SC 749). In this case, the Manager, Assistant Manager, 20 Ziladars and peons of the proprietor of an estate in Uttar Pradesh had carried on election work, after having been given a holiday on full pay by the proprietor of the estate who was the father of the successful candidate. It was contended that inasmuch as these persons were virtually employees of the candidate himself, their salary for the day must be added to the list of election expenses. This Court repelled this contention on the ground that this extra expenditure had not been authorised by the candidate or his agent. Hence it need not be shown as an item of election expense. Voluntry expenditure by friends relations, or sympathisers and expenditure incurred by a candidate's party, without any request or authorisation by the candidate, has never been deemed to be expenditure by the candidate himself. (See Ram Dayal v. Brijraj Singh, (1970) 1 SCR 530 = (AIR 1970 SC 110 Magraj Patodia v. R. K. Birla, (1971)2 SCR 118 = (AIR 1971 SC 1295). 499. An attempt was then made to pass the responsibility on to the original respondent for the expenses of at least 23 vehicles whose numbers are mentioned in a letter dated 25th February, 1971. Written by Shri Kapur, who then (was) the original respondent's election agent, and sent to the District officer, Rae Bareily stating as follow: