Although our religious doctrines have given special importance to the execution of legal punishments and penalties for their conventional outcomes, the execution of legal punishments or their suspension in the age of occultation of the Infallible Imam (A.S.) has been one of the controversial issues in jurisprudence, to the extent that it has created two conflicting fronts; one, a group of distinguished Imāmī jurists who ranked among the proponents, and the other, a group of the jurist scholars who opposed the execution of legal punishments during the occultation, considering this privilege as the exclusive responsibility of the Infallible Imam (A.S.) or his special deputy. In relation to the legal penalties (ta‘zīrāt), there is a disagreement as to the question whether determining the quantity and quality of penalties lies with the ruler as a judge or it is within jurisdiction of the Islamic ruler, namely, walī‘amr (supreme leader). It is attempted in this article, while studying and analyzing the arguments of the two sides on both issues, to touch upon the evidences derived from traditions available in this respect and to explore into different dimensions of this subject.