Actor Atiqa Odho has been acquitted in almost a decade-long case pertaining to the possession of two liquor bottles.
The actor was accused of carrying two liquor bottles in her luggage at an airport when the airport security detained her at the Benazir Bhutto International Airport in 2011. Odho, however, was released in no time after the alleged intervention of some big wigs, but the case was noticed by then chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who took a suo motu and directed the authorities to file an FIR [first investigation report] in the case.
After a hiatus of nine years, a civil court in Rawalpindi finally ruled in favour of the actor, saying Odho was exonerated in the case as there was 'no evidence against her'. The verdict was announced by judicial magistrate Yasir Chaudhry.
According to Dawn, the case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in 2018 a year after the actor approached the Supreme Court for 'intervention'. Odho had pleaded that all trial courts had rejected her application for acquittal on the grounds that the trial was not over and the matter would be decided after the closing of the evidence of the accused in the defence.
The actor was accused of carrying two liquor bottles in her luggage at an airport when the airport security detained her at the Benazir Bhutto International Airport in 2011. Odho, however, was released in no time after the alleged intervention of some big wigs, but the case was noticed by then chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who took a suo motu and directed the authorities to file an FIR [first investigation report] in the case.
After a hiatus of nine years, a civil court in Rawalpindi finally ruled in favour of the actor, saying Odho was exonerated in the case as there was 'no evidence against her'. The verdict was announced by judicial magistrate Yasir Chaudhry.
According to Dawn, the case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in 2018 a year after the actor approached the Supreme Court for 'intervention'. Odho had pleaded that all trial courts had rejected her application for acquittal on the grounds that the trial was not over and the matter would be decided after the closing of the evidence of the accused in the defence.