Article 17 (3) Constitution of Pakistan, Arts 204 and 90 (2) Rules of Business, 1973, RR 5 (1) and 5 (2) contempt of court proceedings for contempt of court against the prime minister What not to do In a case filed with the federal government for the restoration of the application, with the direction of the Supreme Court, Pakistan was withdrawn by the former Attorney General in Switzerland for money laundering case (allegedly serving President of Pakistan) The question is whether the accused (Prime Minister) was aware of the above orders and instructions. The duty of the accused (prime minister) to act on the summary / advice was presented in the minor business case of the accused (the prime minister). Was there only one order that specifically and specifically addressed this? Was addressed and there was a notice of reason, which led him to appear in the Supreme Court and before the notice, no other order was brought directly to the accused in his notice. During the initial stages of implementation, officials of the relevant ministry and the National Accountability Bureau were instructed to prepare a summary for consideration of the prime minister (accused) but were never given any specific direction. If the accused is not held responsible for the summons presented to him, he would not have been prepared according to the directions of the Supreme Court; in business matters the accused cannot be held personally responsible for any wrong suggestion. , And that the orders and instructions of the Supreme Court could not be learned, but it also had to prove that the accused was given the instructions of the Supreme Court till the showcase notice was issued.
