KARACHI: An antiterrorism court acquitted on Tuesday the chief of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement (Haqigi) Afaq Ahmed in a 17-year-old case pertaining to alleged abduction of an officer of the Karachi Development Authority for ransom.

The ATC-V judge pronounced the verdict after recording evidence of the witnesses and hearing concluding arguments from both sides.

Mr Ahmed along with his accomplices had been charged with abducting the then additional director of the KDA in May 2001 in Korangi and demanding ransom for his safe release.

The judge noted in the order that there was not sufficient evidence available on record from the prosecution`s side to connect the suspect with the commission of the offence.

The court exonerated him of the charges, observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused.

The judge had reserved the verdict after hearing final arguments from both sides on June 20.

The prosecution alleged that the workers of the MQM-H had kidnapped the then additional director of the KDA Jamil Baloch from his office and tool( him to the party`s headquarters, Baitul Hamza and demanded ransom for his safe release.

It further said that the Rangers personnel later conducted a raid and got the abducted officer released.

On his complaint, a case (FIR 201/2001) was registered under Sections 365-A (kidnapping to extort money) and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at the Korangi police station.

In his argument, advocate Mushtaq Ahmed for the complainant argued that his client was abducted on orders of the MQM-H chairman and taken to the MQM-H headquarters, where Afag Ahmed forced him to issue orders for allotment of the land, where Baitul Hamza was set up, in the name of the party, but he refused.

He maintained that the complainant himself was a star witness, who had not only identified him during an identification parade but had also recorded his testimony against the suspects.

On the other hand, the defence counsel contended that there were glaring contradictions in the evidence put up by the prosecution to connect the role of Afaq Ahmed with the alleged offence.

It was pointed out that the prosecution failed to examine 1(ey prosecution witnesses during the trial.

It was further pointed out that the Rangers colonel and personnel, who had allegedly conducted raid and retrieved the complainant, had failed to turn up to record their testimonies during the trial.

The defence counsel mentioned that the high court had earlier acquitted the co-accused for want of evidence and pleaded to the court to acquit Afaq Ahmed under the rule of consistency.