held to be there. It could not be the intention of Parliament that justice should appear to be defeated. (Para 629) It is a well-established canon of interpretation that out of two possible interpretations of a provision, one which prevents it from becoming unconstitutional should be preferred if this is possible – ut res magis valeat quam pereat. It is true that the deeming provision seems to stand in the way of examining the merits of the case even though there is no direct provision taking away court’s jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeals before the Courts. A deeming provision introducing a legal fiction must be confined to the context of it and cannot be given a large effect. In other words the Court should examine the context and the purpose of the legal fiction and confine its effects to these. Therefore the context and the political considerations placed before the Court could be relevant in understanding the real meaning of clause (4) of Article 329-A. (Case law discussed). (Paras 632 to 634) If the purpose of the clause (4) of Article 329-A was purely to meet the political needs of the country and was only partly revealed by the policy underlying the Statement of Objects and Reasons it seems possible to contend that it was not intended at all to oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, Article 329-A clause (5) will not so understood, bar the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and decide the appeals when it says that the appeal shall be disposed of in conformity with the provisions of clause (4). On interpretation of clauses (4) and (5) it was held that Article 329-A (4) did not stand in the way of the consideration of the appeals before the Court on merits under the Act of 1951 or the validity of the amendments of the Act. (Para 637) It was also observed by his Lordship that he fails to see what danger to the Country could arise or how national interests could be jeopardised by a consideration and a decision by the Supreme Court of such a good case as the Prime Minister of this Country had on facts and law. (Para 632) (C) Representation of the People Act (1951), Sections 123 (7), 79 (b) and 100 (1) (b) – Corrupt practice – Obtaining or procuring assistance from Government servant – Corrupt practice contemplated by S. 123 (7) cannot be committed BY any person before there is a 'candidate' for an election – ‘Candidate’, meaning of Election Petition No. 5 of 1971. D/-12-6-1975 (All), Reversed. Per Khanna. J. : – There is nothing to indicate that the word ‘‘candidate’’ in clause (7) of Section 123 has been used merely to identify the person who has been or would be subsequently nominated as a candidate. A definition clause in a statute is a legislative device with a view to avoid making different provisions of the statute to be cumbersome. Where a word is defined in the statute and that word is used in a provision to which that definition is