Judgment : 1. Challenging the order of learned II Additional Judge under NDPS Act, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1329 of 2014 in C.C.No.17 of 2011 on 07.08.2014, this revision has been filed. 2. Petitioner and three others face prosecution for offence u/s.8(c) r/w. 22, 23, 27(A), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, in C.C.No.17 of 2011 on the file of learned II Additional Judge under NDPS Act, Chennai. Of the four accused, the petitioner and one another appeared and are before the Court below and the two other accused are absconding. The petitioner, intending to plead guilty, moved an application seeking splitting up of the case. Such petition has been dismissed by the Court below on the reasoning that Rule 17 of the Criminal Rules of Practice provided for splitting up of the case when progress in the trial was being obstructed to the detriment of the accused appearing before Court owing to the abscondance of one or more accused and that the same would not apply in the instant case as this petitioner and another accused was appearing before Court. It has reasoned that when two accused regularly were appearing before it, there was no provision for splitting up of the case as against one of them. 3. Rule 17 of the Criminal Rules of Practice reads thus: “17.Cases in which some of the Accused have Absconded: When there are several accused persons in a case, and only some of them have appeared or been produced before the Court, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the presence of other accused cannot be secured within a reasonable time, having due regard to the right of such of the accused as have appeared to have the case against them enquired into without delay he shall proceed with the case as against such of the accused as have appeared and dispose of it according to law. As regards the accused who have not appeared he shall give the case a new number and enter it in the register of cases received, and it remains pending for a long time and efforts to secure the presence of the accused have failed, and the case against the accused who have appeared has been disposed of, the Magistrate shall report the whole matter as regards all the accused to the District Magistrate through the Sub-divisional Magistrate, if any, and the District Magistrate may direct that the case against the absent accused be removed to the “Registrar of long pendency cases”, or if the District Magistrate is of the opinion that the case against the absent accused is wholly false, he may direct that the case be omitted from the register and the returns altogether, provided that he may at any subsequent time order the case to be entered in the register of long pending cases.” 4. That Rule 17 of the Criminal Rules of Practice provides for a particular circumstance cannot be read to mean that judicious discretion is not to be exercised in others. After all, rules of procedure only are handmaids of justice and not its mistress. In a case as the present, it easily can be realised that the pendency of proceedings against an accused, who wishes to plead guilty, merely owing to abscondance of some other accused in the case, causes him grave injustice. 5. This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The order of learned II Additional Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1329 of 2014 in C.C.No.17 of 2011 on 07.08.2014, shall stand set aside. The Court below shall now spilt up the case as between the petitioner and the other accused appearing before it. Even against such other accused and the absconding accused, the Court below may adopt the procedure informed in Rule 17 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, if the fact situation warrants its doing so. It is to be realised that Section 299 Cr.P.C. enables the evidence in the case proceeded with to be used in subsequent proceedings against other accused, in particular circumstances. For general benefit, Registry is directed to circulate the present order to all criminal Courts below in the State.