The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that criminal appeal proceedings cannot be deferred merely on the ground that the convict is suffering from “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood,” observing that an appeal does not require the appellant to personally appear and argue when legal representation is available. A single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti dismissed a petition challenging an order of the appellate court that declined to postpone hearing an appeal arising from a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Hakeem Zaffar Ahmad, was convicted on September 10, 2025, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge), Srinagar, for committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving dishonoured cheques amounting to Rs. 40 lacs.
Challenging the conviction, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. During the appellate proceedings, the petitioner filed an application seeking deferment of the hearing on the grounds of mental health issues. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected this plea vide an order dated June 30, 2026. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Ms. Asma Rashid submitted that the petitioner was a psychiatric patient and requested additional time, stating that it would take not less than one month to procure a medical certificate regarding his exact mental state of health.
Counsel insisted on entertaining the challenge on the strength of an “Illness Certificate” (Certificate No. PSY/MB/CERT/2026/180 dated April 2, 2026) issued by the Medical Superintendent, Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital, Kahtidarawaza, Rainawari, Srinagar, which described the petitioner as a case of “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood.”
The respondent was represented by Advocate Mr. Asif Ahmad Bhat.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court noted that although it was initially willing to accommodate the petitioner’s counsel to produce a certificate certifying an exact mental state disabling him from attending to legal affairs, the petitioner could not escape the appellate proceedings on the basis of the existing illness certificate.
Justice Bharti emphasized the nature of appellate proceedings and the presence of legal counsel, observing:
“The appeal is not a matter in which a convict himself or herself is supposed to appear and argue.”
The Court highlighted that the petitioner had the legal assistance of Advocate Mr. Mehboob Sofi to represent him before the appellate court. It noted:
“Given the fact that, in his appeal, the petitioner was and is supposedly having assistance of Advocate Mr. Mehboob Sofi, therefore, 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, and to invest his trust in the judgment of the appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar.”
Addressing the petitioner’s condition, the Court further remarked:
“This Court finds no illegality committed on the part of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, in declining the petitioner’s plea for deferment of the hearing of the appeal on the purported plea of being suffering from Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. 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.”
Decision
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, the High Court dismissed the petition at its very inception stage.
Case Details
Case Title: Hakeem Zaffar Ahmad v. Rattan Singh
Case No.: CM(5285/2026) in CM(M) 353/2026, CM(5286/2026) Caveat 1890/2026
Bench: Justice Rahul Bharti
Date: 19.08.2026
