408. As I read the petition I find only the first of the three types of cases mentioned above set up exclusively on issue No. 1 because there are no particulars there which could apply to the other two types of cases. Obviously, the case set up was not of a corrupt practice by some act of a person to which the candidate became a party by merely giving consent in which case the circumstances from which the consent was to be inferred had to be indicated. It was a case of a direction given by the Prime Minister herself to Shri Kapur who it had to be presumed for the purposes of such a case would not have been the aid if the direction or order was not there. This deliberately given "direction" had to be proved on the case set up. On issue No. 3 the petition mentions only what was obtained that is to say the aid of particular officers and the form it took; but what caused that aid to be given or the means adopted to get it were not set up there. I think these distinctions should have been borne in mind. I shall indicate below how the learned Judge in dealing with a case of the first type only falling under Section 100 (1) (b) of the Act found in issue No. 1 mixed up facts which could strictly speaking be relevant only in considering a case of one of the other two types. And in deciding issue No. 3 what really and quite naturally flowed from and was the well understood appurtenant of the office of a Prime Minister and indeed absolutely necessary for the due protection of the life and freedom of movement of the holder of that high office was mistaken by the learned Judge to be the result of some kind of assumed solicitation for aid. What the learned Judge entirely missed was that it is the act of solicitations for the aid of the officials mentioned in Section 123 (7) whether successful or not and not the mere fact that certain advantages flow quite naturally and conventionally from the occupation of an office without any solicitations or the mere fact that some assistance is voluntarily given by someone to an election campaign which is penalised by the provision. 409. The definition given above in Section 123 (7) meant on an ordinary and natural interpretation of words used that the corrupt practice defined there could not be committed by any person before there was a "candidate" for an election. Hence, it became necessary to examine the definition of a "candidate" found in Section 79 (b) which laid down: "79 In this part and in parts VII and VIII unless the context otherwise requires – ** ** ** (b) 'candidate' means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election and any such person shall be deemed to have been a candidate as from the time when with the election in prospect he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate." 410. Section 123 defining corrupt practices is found in Part VII of the Act Therefore, the definition of candidate in Section 79 as it originally stood was sought to be applied by the Trial Court to determine whether the original respondent could have committed a corrupt practice at the time of the alleged commission of it. Before however, I deal with that question it is necessary to examine what "obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting: meant in