Criminal case under section 29 ndps act and governemnt job .

Dear Fabian'

1. When you furnished information then informed them about pending case, if after that they offer the job then dont worry about it.

2. yes, the court can start trail against you seprately.

3. according to section 227 Crpc the court have power to discharge the accused at first hearing.

Thanks nadeem sir,,

For anyone in a similar spot dealing with an NDPS case and worried about how it'll affect a job or career (government or otherwise): a couple of things worth knowing. Whether it shows as "pending" vs. "convicted" matters a lot for disclosure purposes, so be upfront and factual rather than trying to downplay it. More importantly, get a good drug lawyer involved as early as possible — ideally one specifically experienced in NDPS matters rather than a general criminal lawyer, since NDPS has its own procedural quirks (Section 52A compliance being one that's gotten cases thrown out on technicalities before). Getting that groundwork done well ahead of trial makes a real difference in how these cases play out.

A pending NDPS case does not automatically disqualify you from every government job, but you must disclose it truthfully wherever the application/attestation form asks about pending criminal proceedings. Suppression can itself become a serious ground for cancellation of candidature or service. The appointing authority may consider the applicable recruitment/service rules, nature of allegations and status of proceedings.

Regarding separate proceedings, you may request the trial court to separate your trial where legally permissible, particularly if the co-accused's absence is causing prolonged delay. Whether separation is appropriate depends upon the circumstances and the court's assessment.

For discharge, since the alleged offence is under Sections 20/29 NDPS Act, the court can discharge an accused at the appropriate pre-charge stage if the prosecution material does not disclose sufficient grounds to proceed. Mere presence or knowledge, without material indicating agreement, abetment or participation in the alleged offence, may be significant in contesting Section 29 liability.

Because an NDPS prosecution can substantially affect employment, have the FIR, charge-sheet and evidence specifically reviewed before the charge hearing.