Teh Cheng Poh V Pp

In teh cheng poh v pp 10 the privy council held that article 145 3 has given the attorney general wide discretion in criminal prosecutions and his power to exercise the discretion is not an infringement of the concept of equality before the law as provided in article 8 1 of the federal constitution. Teh cheng poh v pp 1 mlj 150 in this case the appellant had been charged for possession in security area of a revolver and ammunition under the internal security act 1960. Teh cheng poh v pp 1979 1 mlj 50 2 mlj 238 1980 ac 458 and abdul ghani ali ahmad v pp 2001 3 mlj 561.

taman petani jaya sungai petani kedah taman rimba bukit lagong taman layang layang selayang tallest man in malaysia taman tun dr ismail kuala lumpur taman eng ann klang food takata airbag recall malaysia taman connaught pasar malam

View teh cheng poh v public prosecutor 1979 1 doc from law 09 at northern university of malaysia.

Teh cheng poh v pp. Dato yap peng v pp 1987 2 mlj 311. Thus in short who actually has the power to declare emergency. Pp 27 the privy council considered the validity of emergency legislation promulgated by the yang di pertuan agong once parliament had sat.

Fathul bari mat jahya v majlis agama islam ns. 4 teh cheng poh v pp 1979 1 mlj 50 at 56. Jabar v pp 1995 1 slr 617.

The appellant was tried under the special procedure laid down by the essential security cases amendment regulations 1975 and found guilty and sentenced to death. In abdul ghani ali v pp the federal court agrees with the opinion in the case of teh cheng poh v pp which stated that the ydpa does not have a personal discretion under the article 150 1 but has at all time act on the cabinet advice. Merdeka university v government 1982 2 mlj 243.

Malaya law review validity of emergency legislation and the saga of teh cheng poh s case teh cheng poh v public prosecutor 1979 1 m l j 50 one of the most interesting and significant cases in constitutional law decided by the privy council on appeal from malaysia would perhaps be teh cheng poh v p p their lordships stated a number of important points of law regarding articles 149 and 150 of. S422 cpc incurable. One of the most interesting and significant cases in constitutional law decided by the privy council on appeal from malaysia would perhaps be teh cheng poh v.

Their lordships stated a number. Teh cheng poh 1979 1 mlj 50. 3 pp v poh choo ching 1981 1 mlj 86.

In declaring such legislation invalid and ultra vires the constitution their lordships of the board considered the law making power of the agong and said. Dato menteri othman baginda 1981 1 mlj 29. Pendakwa raya v kok wah kuan 2007 5 mlj 174.

The overriding consideration in giving such a broad interpretation to the powers of the. Ong ah chuan v pp 1981 1 mlj 64. Pp v riza shahriz bin abdul aziz attorney general s chambers malaysia 17 may 2020.

Page 1 page 2 malayan law journal reports 1979 volume 1 teh cheng poh v public prosecutor. 20 subramaniam gopal v pp 2010 2 mlj 525. Of ns v muhammad juzaili mohd khamis 2015 6 mlj 736.

21 yb khalid samad v majlis agama islam selangor 2016 mlju 338. Datuk harun v pp 1976 2 mlj 116. In teh cheng poh v.

Tuan mat tuan wil v kerajaan kelantan 2016 7 mlj 704.