BALUSAMY vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Crl.A. No. 515/2004
Case under Section II-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010023332003
Filing Date
30-Jan-2003
Registration No
Crl.A. No. 515/2004
Diary Number
2333/2003
Order Date
24-Feb-2011
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BALUSAMY
Adv. S. SRINIVASAN (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Adv. S. THANANJAYAN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Feb-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Jan-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Nov-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Oct-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Aug-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-May-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Apr-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Apr-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Feb-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Jan-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Dec-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Nov-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Oct-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Sep-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Aug-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Jul-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-May-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Mar-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Mar-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jan-2003
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 515/2004
Case Summary: Balusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (Crl.A. No. 515/2004) On 24 February 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed Balusamy's criminal appeal against a corruption conviction. The Court upheld the trial and High Court judgments, finding that prosecution witnesses (the complainant, his brother-in-law, and the investigating officer) had proven the bribe demand and acceptance, a positive phenolphthalein test confirmed Rs. 1,500 recovered from the accused, and the accused's conflicting statements under Section 313 CrPC undermined his defence. The Court rejected the appellant's argument citing *A. Subair v. State of Kerala*, distinguishing that case on facts where key witnesses were hostile and the bribe was trivial, whereas here demand and acceptance were properly proven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts