note of. Here the hiring was by the Congress Committee which was not such an agent and therefore the amount spent by the Congress Committee cannot be taken as an amount which must compulsorily be included in the expenditure over the election by a candidate. If this be the position, we have to decide whether this amount spent on the jeeps must be taken to be an expenditure made by the candidate himself. Of that there is no evidence. The bill stands in the name of the Congress Committee and was presumably paid by the Congress Committee also. The evidence, however, is that this jeep was used on behalf of the returned candidate and to that extent we subscribe to the finding given by the learned Judge. Even if it be held that the candidate was at bottom the hirer of the jeep and the expenditure on it must be included in his account, the difficulty is that this jeep was used also for the general Congress propaganda in other Constituencies." 502. In Shah Jayantilal Ambalal v. Kasturilal Nagindas Doshi (1972) 42 Ele LR 307 at p. 311 this Court held : "It is now well settled that expenses incurred by a political party in support of its candidates do not come within the mischief of Section 123 (6) read with Section 77 of the Act." 503. In Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez. (1969) 3 SCR 603 at p. 637 = (AIR 1969 SC 1201 at p. 1221) this Court pointed out: "In India all corrupt practices stand on the same footing. The only difference made is that when consent is proved on the part of the candidate or his election agent to the commission of corrupt practice that itself is sufficient. When a corrupt practice is committed by an agent and there is no such consent then the petitoner must go further and prove that the result of the election in so far as the returned candidate is concerned was materially affected." 504. However, as I have already held, there is no case or evidence before us that the Congress Party was the agent, express or implied of the original respondent or acting as the channel through which any money whatsoever was spent by the original respondent. The petition could not possibly succeed on the ground of exceeding election expenses. On the other hand, on the findings given by me above, the expenses on the construction of rostrums were also erroneously added by the learned Judge. In fact it seems that other two items mentioned there were also wrongly added. Expenses of the installation and use of loudspeakers and the power supplied were certainly shown to have been borne by the Congress Party itself. It is true that when elections of persons in the position of the Prime Minister or even of Ministers, whether in the Central Government or a State Government, take place, a number of people come forward to either give or thrust their supposed aid in the election. It may be impossible for the candidate to refuse it without offending them. But it is also impossible for the Courts to make the candidate himself or herself responsible so as to impose an obligation upon the candidate to find out what expenses incurred by them were and them to add these on to the candidate's accounts of expenses. That would be, obviously, a