Per Beg. J.:– 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. Nevertheless, the authorisation has to be set up and proved. (Para 497) Voluntary 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. The law requires proof of circumstances from which at least implied authorisation can be inferred. It is not enough that some advantage accrued or expenditure was incurred within the knowledge of the candidate. (Case law discussed). (Paras 498, 504) In the instant case there was no case or evidence that the Congress Party was the agent, express or implied, of the respondent, the returned candidate, or acting as the channel through which any money whatsoever was spent by the respondent. The petition could not possibly succeed on the ground of exceeding election expenses. (Para 504) (H) Representation of the People Act (1951), S. 77 – Expenditure incurred or authorised by political party – Candidate is not required to disavow or denounce expenditure. AIR 1975 SC 308 held no longer good law in view of legislative changes. Per Ray. C. J. : – Expenditure incurred by a political party in connection with the election of the candidates of the party is not a part of the election expenses of the candidate. Similarly participation in the programme of activity organised by a political party will not fall within the election expenses of the candidate of the party. A candidate is not required to disavow or denounce the expenditure incurred or authorised by the political party because the expenditure is neither incurred nor authorised by the candidate. One can disavow what would be ascribed to be incurred or authorised by one. In the case of expenses of a political party there is no question of disavowing expenditure incurred or authorised by the political party. AIR 1975 SC 308 held no longer good law in view of legislative changes. (Paras 113, 119) (I) Representation of the People Act (1951), S. 123 (7) – Corrupt practice – Obtaining or procuring assistance from Government servant – Evidence and Proof – Standard – Proof of means rea is necessary, Ele. Petn. No. 5 of 1971, D/- 12-6-1975). (All) reversed Observations to the contrary in AIR 1959 SC 244, Dissented from. Per Beg. J. – Allegations of corrupt practice in the course of an election must be judged by the same standards as a criminal charge. No rule of evidence in judging guilt on a criminal charge, is more firmly rooted than that no charge, resting on circumstantial evidence, could be held to be proved