BALUSAMY vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Crl.A. No. 515/2004

Case under Section II-A. Status: Disposed.

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

Section II-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BALUSAMY

    Adv. S. SRINIVASAN (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU

    Adv. S. THANANJAYAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 11-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 18-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 06-Oct-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 27-Aug-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 07-May-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 07-Apr-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 16-Apr-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 09-Feb-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 19-Jan-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 15-Dec-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 10-Nov-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 06-Oct-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 01-Sep-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 18-Aug-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 14-Jul-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 08-May-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 10-Mar-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 03-Mar-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 30-Jan-2003

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 515/2004

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case