Back
Hakeem Zaffar Ahmad Cannot Defer Appeal Due to Depressed Mood: J&K High Court
The has firmly held that a criminal appeal cannot be postponed merely because the appellant claims to be suffering from a depressed mood, especially when is available to argue the case. Justice Rahul Bharti, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed a petition seeking on grounds of mental health.
The Dispute and the Medical Certificate
The petitioner, Hakeem Zaffar Ahmad, had been convicted by the , on , for an offence under , concerning a dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 40 lakhs. He appealed this conviction before the . When the appellate court refused to defer the hearing on , Ahmad approached the High Court.
In support of his plea for deferment, Ahmad relied on an "
" dated
, issued by the Medical Superintendent of the
. The certificate described his condition as
"
."
Court's Willingness to Accommodate and Petitioner's Refusal
The High Court had previously directed the petitioner to produce a more detailed medical certificate specifying whether his condition actually disabled him from attending to his legal affairs. , counsel for Ahmad, requested at least one month to procure such a certificate. However, instead of complying, the petitioner insisted on relying solely on the existing diagnosis certificate.
Justice Bharti noted that the court was willing to accommodate a valid medical certificate demonstrating a genuine disabling condition, but the petitioner's counsel insisted on engaging the court based solely on the vague "."
Counsel Can Argue, No Need for Appellant's Presence
A crucial legal observation made by the court was that an appeal does not require the
.
"The appeal is not a matter in which an appellant himself or herself is supposed to appear and argue,"
the judge remarked.
The court further noted that Ahmad was already represented by
before the Additional Sessions Judge.
"There was and is no disability on the part of
, learned Advocate, to represent the petitioners to argue the matter in the pending appeal,"
Justice Bharti observed. Thus, the presence of a competent counsel negated any need for deferment on mental health grounds.
No Illegality Found in Lower Court's Order
The High Court found no illegality in the Additional Sessions Judge's decision to decline the deferment. The bench also questioned the genuineness of the depressed mood claim, stating:
"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
relating to an amount of Rs. 40 lacs of dishonoured cheque/s."
Decision and Implications
Justice Rahul Bharti dismissed the petition at its inception stage, upholding the lower court's refusal to delay the appeal. The ruling reaffirms that mental health conditions like adjustment disorder, , cannot be used as a . The judgment underscores the principle that when an appellant has , the appeal can and should proceed without the appellant's personal presence.
