A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) TWO petitioners faced trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrak on the accusation that they committed offence punishable under sections 448/ 342/385/506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ). ( 2 ) THE accusations which led to the trial of the accused in brief are as follows: On 1. 3. 1983 at about 1. 30 p. m. Kanhu Charan Das (P. W. 1) was teaching in Class VI of Korkora M. E. School of which he was the Headmaster. In his refusal to sign on a blank paper authorising repair of the school building, he was dragged by the accused persons to the Jubak Sangh Office assaulted and his movement was restricted by making him to sit on a chair. Kanhu was reached by the students and teachers of the institution from the Jubak Sangh Office. He lodged an information in the Bhandari-pokhari Police Station. Investigation was taken up and after completion thereof, chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons. The plea of the accused persons during me trial was one of complete denial of the occurrence. They took a positive stand that the Headmaster had foisted a false case against them due to previous enmity. ( 3 ) SIX witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. In addition Kanhu who was the informant and was examined as P. W. 1, Mukundadev (P. W. 2) and Chakradhar Nanda (P. W. 3) teachers of the institution stated to have witnessed the occurrence. Laxmidhar Sahoo (P. W. 4) who was the student of the institution, deposed that the accused persons dragged the informant out of the class room. Basanta Kumar Pal (P. W. 5) a teacher of the Institution deposed about the rescue of the informant from the Jubak Sangh Office. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found that the accused persons were guilty of offence punishable under section 342 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to under go S. I. for ten days. In appeal, conviction and sentence were maintained. ( 4 ) IN support of the revision application, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the prosecution has squarely failed to substantiate the allegation that the informant was wrongfully confined. 200/- in default to under go S. I. for ten days. In appeal, conviction and sentence were maintained. ( 4 ) IN support of the revision application, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the prosecution has squarely failed to substantiate the allegation that the informant was wrongfully confined. The evidence of the witnesses who claimed to have seen the occurrence is characterised to be artificial and got up. The non-examination of the investigating officer is highlighted to submit that it rendered the prosecution version vulnerable. The learned counsel for the State supported the conviction and the sentence. ( 5 ) WRONGFUL confinement is defined in section 340 I. P. C. It is a form of wrongful restraint' which expression is defined in section 339, I. P. C. as whoever voluntarily obstruct any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. Section 340 requires: (1) Wrongful restraint to a person. (2) Such restraint must prevent a person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limit. In order to constitute wrongful restraint following ingredients are required: (1) Voluntarily obstruction of a person; (2) Obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has right to proceed. The evidence of P. Ws. 1,2,3 and 4 proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused persons dragged the informant out of the class room, forcibly took him to the Jubak Sangh Office, and restrained his movement by making him sit on a chair and not permitting him to leave the place. The ingredients of offence punishable under section 342 have been established against the accused persons. ( 6 ) IT cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever investigating officer is not examined, it is fatal to the prosecution. Evidence the investigating officer like that of any other witness, is to be considered on the touchstone of relevancy. Unless it is shown by the accused that he was prejudice by non-examination of the investigating officer, the prosecution case does not get affected. In the case at hand none of the witnesses was questioned about his having made a different statement before the Investigating Officer. Unless it is shown by the accused that he was prejudice by non-examination of the investigating officer, the prosecution case does not get affected. In the case at hand none of the witnesses was questioned about his having made a different statement before the Investigating Officer. Evidence of Investigating Officer assumes its significance when definite question is put to witness about his statement before the Investigating Officer, and any departure made while deposing in court. Unless prejudice is established by the accused, non-examination of the investigating officer cannot make the prosecution version vulnerable. This position has been indicated by this Court in Suguda Majhi v. State and Gour Gadtia v. State of Orissa. The sentence awarded is rather liberal and needs no interference. The revisional application being devoid of merit is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .