Criminal Appeal Need Not Be Deferred Merely Due To Appellant's 'Depressed Mood'; Counsel Can Represent Him: J&K&L High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
28 Aug 2026 1:37 PM IST
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a criminal appeal cannot be deferred merely on the basis of a medical certificate showing that the appellant is suffering from “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood”, particularly when the appellant is represented by counsel who can appear and argue the matter on his behalf.
Justice Rahul Bharti observed that the appellant's personal presence was not necessary for arguing the appeal and that his advocate was capable of representing him before the appellate court. The Court accordingly found no illegality in the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar declining to defer the appeal proceedings.
The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar to defer proceedings in his criminal appeal. The appeal arose from a judgment of conviction, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge), Srinagar.
The Additional Sessions Judge had, by order, declined the petitioner's request to defer the appellate proceedings.
Before the High Court, the petitioner relied upon a medical certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital. The certificate described the petitioner as a case of “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood.”
The High Court noted that its earlier order had required the petitioner to produce a medical certificate indicating his exact mental state and whether his condition was such as to disable him from attending to his affairs, including his legal affairs. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that procuring such a certificate would take at least a month.
The Court observed that it was willing to accommodate the petitioner if a medical certificate established an actual disabling condition, but the petitioner was instead seeking to rely upon the existing “Illness Certificate” merely recording the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood.
A significant factor considered by the Court was the nature of the pending proceeding.
Justice Bharti observed,
“The appeal is not a matter in which an appellant himself or herself is supposed to appear and argue.”
The Court further noted that the petitioner was represented in the appeal by Advocate Mehboob Sofi and held that there was no disability preventing the counsel from representing him and arguing the matter before the Additional Sessions Judge.
“There was and is no disability on the part of Mr. Mehboob Sofi, learned Advocate, to represent the petitioners to argue the matter in the pending appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar.”
Thus, the Court distinguished between a medical condition affecting a person's capacity to conduct his affairs and the ability of his counsel to conduct an appellate proceeding on his behalf.
The High Court ultimately found no illegality in the Additional Sessions Judge's refusal to defer the hearing on the basis of the medical certificate. The Court observed that it could not rule out the possibility that the petitioner's depressed mood was related to the fact that he had been convicted in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act concerning dishonoured cheque(s) amounting to Rs. 40 lakh.
“This Court cannot rule out that the depressed mood of the petitioner can be related to the fact that he has been convicted in a criminal case for commission of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 relating to an amount of Rs. 40 lacs of dishonoured cheque/s.”, the court remarked.
The Court therefore declined to interfere with the appellate court's order.
Case Title: Hakeem Zaffar Ahmad v. Rattan Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326
