Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court rules that legal representation suffices despite appellant's mental health concerns.
In a recent judgment delivered on August 19, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Justice Rahul Bharti, dismissed a petition seeking the deferment of a criminal appeal hearing. The petitioner, Hakeem Zaffar Ahmad, requested the deferment on the grounds of being diagnosed with "Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood." However, the court ruled that the presence of the appellant was not mandatory for the appeal proceedings as the appellant was already represented by legal counsel.
The legal battle arose from a previous conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, related to a dishonored cheque amounting to Rs. 40 lakhs. Ahmad's plea for deferment was initially rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, a decision which he sought to challenge before the High Court.
Ahmad's counsel, Ms. Asma Rashid, argued that her client was unable to attend to his legal affairs due to his mental health condition. Despite this, Justice Bharti emphasized that the appellant's legal representation by Advocate Mr. Mehboob Sofi was sufficient to argue the case in his absence. The court highlighted that the legal counsel's ability to represent the appellant ensured that the appellant's rights in the appeal process were not compromised.
The court recognized the psychiatric certificate from the Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital, Srinagar, diagnosing Ahmad with "Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood." However, it was determined that this condition did not impede his legal representation from proceeding with the appeal.
Justice Bharti found no illegality in the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, to decline the deferment plea, stating that the depressed mood of the petitioner might be linked to his conviction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed Ahmad's petition at the outset, reaffirming the principle that legal representation can adequately safeguard an appellant's interests in appeal proceedings, even in light of personal health challenges.
Bottom Line :
Petition for deferment of hearing of criminal appeal on the ground of mental health issues cannot be entertained when the appellant is represented by counsel and the disorder does not prevent the counsel from arguing the case.
Statutory provision(s): Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Hakeem Zaffar Ahmad v. Rattan Singh, (J&K and Ladakh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2969100
