RAWALPINDI: Famous television actor Atiqa Odho was on Friday finally acquitted in a liquor case after facing a trial that spanned over nine years in a civil court of Rawalpindi.

The civil judge, Yasir Chaudry, acquitted Ms Odho of carrying two bottles of foreign liquor in her bag while she was checking in for the Pakistan International Airline’s (PIA) Karachi-bound flight PK-301.

On June 4, 2011, then chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had taken suo motu notice of Ms Odho’s release despite recovery of two bottles of wine from her luggage.

She was barred from boarding the Karachi-bound flight from Islamabad after the Airport Security Force allegedly seized the liquor. However, the ASF let her go on the intervention of some ‘influential figures’.

Ms Odho was then secretary information of retired General Pervez Musharraf’s party — All Pakistan Muslim League.

The former CJP directed police and Customs officials to clarify why they should not be proceeded against for sparing Ms Odho despite recovery of liquor from her possession.

Later, Customs officials formally lodged a complaint with the airport police station, which then registered a case against Ms Odho under Section 3/4 of the Prohibition Order (Enforcement of Hadd) of 1979.

Ms Odho then secured an interim bail from the court of Rawalpindi additional district and sessions judge.

During the nine-year-long trial, the case was fixed for hearing for 174 days, while 12 different judges were posted/transferred during this period.

Judge Yasir Chaudhry acquitted Ms Odho for want of evidence.

In 2017, Atiqa Odho filed a petition in the Supreme Court after her acquittal plea was kept pending by the civil court.

She took the plea that no trial court was willing to deal with her case on merit because of the fear that it was registered at the behest of the apex court.

Ms Odho’s counsel argued that the actor was booked under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, on former CJP Chaudhry’s orders. Article 4 pertains to the punishment for owning or possessing an intoxicant.

According to the counsel, the Hudood Ordinance does not apply to the case as an airport lounge was not a public point.

He lamented that the trial court did not take his client’s objections into account.

Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2020