election or after the dissolution or vacancy in consequence of which the writ was issue. The electoral offences under the English Act speak of a person to be guilty of corrupt practices of bribery as mentioned in section 99, of treating as mentioned in Section 100 and of undue influence as mentioned in Section 101 of the English Act. These sections in the English Act speak of a person and do not use the expression ‘‘candidate’’. 143. Where a candidate is elected the English definition gives no commencing date as from which his candidature has commenced; whereas if he be not elected, he is not a candidate until he has been nominated, or is declared to be a candidate on or after the dissolution or vacancy. A candidate who is elected is accordingly a ‘‘candidate’’ as soon as he has entered upon his election campaign, and has made it known that he intends to present himself as a candidate at the ensuing election, he may thus become a candidate before the dissolution of Parliament and may be unseated for bribery or treating committed months or even years before the vacancy or election, for such acts are offences at common law. With respect to illegal practices which are purely statutory offences, it would seem that a narrower construction will prevail, and that a candidate will not be held responsible for payments etc., made before he is a candidate in point of fact, and which payments only become illegal practices by reason of his subsequently becoming a candidate (See Parker’s Conduct of Parliamentary Elections 1970 Ed. pages 52-53). 144 It has been held in England that a candidate may be unseated for bribery or treating committed months or even years before the vacancy or election (Youghal 1 OM & H 295; Bodmin 5 O’M & H 230). The present position under the English Act is stated in Parker’s Conduct of Parliamentary Elections 1970 Ed at p. 330 to be that since the corrupt practice under consideration is purely a statutory offence which only becomes a corrupt practice by reason of the person in whose support the prohibited expenses were incurred subsequently becoming a candidate the candidate may not be held responsible. In Norwich (1886) 54 LT 625 (627) the question was considered in relation to the responsibility of a candidate for payments which only became illegal practices by reason of his subsequently becoming a ‘‘candidate’’ as defined by statute and it was held that he was not liable. The liability of a candidate under the English Act, particularly with regard to election expenses as laid down in Section 63 of the English Act is regarded as open to doubt until the point is settled by the decision of an election court. 145 Sections 171-A to 171-I of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions contained in Sections 125 to 136 of the 1951 Act follow the pattern of English Acts namely, Statutes 17 and 18 Victoria. Chapter CII (1853-54); Statutes 21 and 22 Victoria Chapter LXXXVII (1858) and Statues 46 and 47 Victoria Chapter LI (1882). These English Statutes make certain acts punishable as corrupt practice when they relate to persons other than candidates or voters Section II of 17 and 18 Victoria chapter CII enacts that the persons mentioned therein shall be deemed guilty of bribery and punishable in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The words used there are ‘‘every person’’ who shall do the acts mentioned therein shall be punishable. In these