practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice." 495. The judgment of this Court, in Kanwarlal Gupta's case (AIR 1975 SC 308) (supra) discusses a number of cases decided by this Court which shows that it is not enough to prove expenditure of money by a candidate's party or friends or relations. It must be also proved that this was expenditure authorised by the candidate and incurred as the candidate's express or implied agent. These cases were : Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnagh Singh, (1955) 1 SCR 671 = (AIR 1954 SC 749); 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) and B. Rajagopala Rao v. N.G. Ranga, (AIR 1971 SC 267). 496. After examining this catena of cases, I think, with great respect that the decision of this Court in Kanwarlal Gupta's case (AIR 1975 SC 308) (Supra) could be understood to point in a direction contrary to that in which the previous cases were decided. Hence, it appears to me that the amendment made by Act 58 of 1974 by adding the explanation (1) to Section 77(1) of the Act, could be justified as merely an attempt to restore the law as it had been understood to be previous to decision of this Court in Kanwarlal Gupta's case (supra): "Explanation 1.– Notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision of any court to the contrary any expenditure incurred or authorised in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual (other than the candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed to be and shall not ever be deemed to have been, expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by the candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section: Provided that nothing contained in this Explanation shall affect – (a) any judgment, order or decision of the Supreme Court whereby the election of a candidate to the House of the People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974. (b) any judgment order or decision of a High Court where by the election of any such candidate has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the said Ordinance if no appeal has been preferred to the Supreme Court against such judgment order or decision of the High Court before such commencement and the period of limitation for filing such appeal has expired before such commencement." 497. It appears to me that both parties to the case now before us were under the impression that the expenses incurred by a political party over its candidate's election was outside the prescribed limit which operated only