Home  /  Prevention of Corruption Act  /  Section 25

Section 25: Military, Naval and Air Force or other law not to be affected

Prevention of Corruption Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1988
Section 24 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 26

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 25

Section 25 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a paramount savings clause that preserves the specialized jurisdictional and disciplinary authority of the Armed Forces and paramilitary tribunals. It explicitly provides that nothing in the PC Act shall affect the jurisdiction or procedures applicable to courts-martial or statutory authorities under the Army Act, 1950, Air Force Act, 1950, Navy Act, 1957, Border Security Force Act, 1968, or other military enactments, regulating the jurisdictional conflict between civilian Special Judges and military courts.

  • Absolute Non-Derogation of Military Law: Military personnel subject to service law who commit corrupt acts remain amenable to court-martial proceedings; the PC Act does not oust or curtail the disciplinary and penal powers of armed forces commanders.
  • Interplay with Section 475 CrPC (Section 524 BNSS): Governs the procedural mechanism for choosing between civilian criminal trials before a Special Judge and military courts-martial; the competent military authority has the first option to claim the accused for trial by court-martial.
  • Preclusion of Double Jeopardy Claims: The exercise of jurisdiction by a Special Judge or Court-Martial is subject to Article 20(2) of the Constitution and statutory bars against double jeopardy, ensuring an orderly handover between civilian and military authorities.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Ram Sarup v. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 247: A Constitution Bench held that where both a civilian criminal court and a court-martial have concurrent jurisdiction over an offense, the military authorities have the primary statutory discretion under the Army Act and CrPC to decide whether the officer should be tried by court-martial or handed over to civilian courts.
  • Union of India v. S.K. Sharma (1987) 3 SCC 490: The Supreme Court held that Section 25 PC Act protects the disciplinary hierarchy of the armed forces; civilian investigating agencies cannot bypass military command structures or override the statutory procedures governing the prosecution of defense personnel.
  • Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 1 SCC 90: The Supreme Court held that compliance with Section 475 CrPC and the Criminal Courts and Court-Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules is mandatory before a civilian court proceeds with the trial of an armed forces personnel; failure to give notice to the commanding officer vitiates the trial.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When representing military, naval, or air force personnel arraigned before a civilian Special Judge for alleged bribery, immediately file an application under Section 475 CrPC (Section 524 BNSS) r/w Section 25 PC Act. Request that the Special Judge stay proceedings and issue formal notice to the competent military commanding officer. If the military authorities elect to try the accused under the Army/Navy/Air Force Act, civilian proceedings must immediately abate and custody be transferred.

Section 24 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 26