JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 8-A, 13(1)(c) of Seed Control Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the order of 1983) read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court through the seizure memo/mouka parcha to highlight that the samples of the seeds which were collected from the petitioners' premises were packed in a cloth bag and, therefore, the same is contrary to law as the seeds can gather moisture. 3. In support of the contention aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Gulshan Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 123/2013) & S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 6374/2021 (M/s. Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Private Limited v. The State of Rajasthan) and submitted that the petitioners' case is squarely covered by the judgments aforesaid. 4. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Rule 23 of the Seeds Rules, 1973, the report of the sample should come within 30 days, whereas in the present case the samples were collected on 04.10.2017 and the report has been prepared on 22.11.2017, resultantly the proceedings are vitiated. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds which the petitioners have taken before this Court are matter of evidence and the order taking cognizance cannot be faulted with based on the grounds raised by the petitioners. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. A perusal of the seizure memo/mouka parcha reveals that the seeds in question were packed in a cloth sachet, whereafter they were kept in a hard paper bag duly sealed and pasted and then, tied with strong thread/Sutali. 8. This Court is, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the seeds were not simply packed in a cloth sachet as has been done in the case of Gulshan Kumar (supra). 9. 8. This Court is, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the seeds were not simply packed in a cloth sachet as has been done in the case of Gulshan Kumar (supra). 9. A perusal of the facts noted in the case of Gulshan Kumar (supra) reveals that the samples were packed in cloth bags for which the Court recorded finding that it may catch moisture, whereas in the instant case, the seeds after being packed being packed in cloth bags, were kept in a hard paper bag ruling out or reducing the possibility of attracting moisture. 10. This being the position, it is too early to quash the proceedings without there being any adjudication of the parameters of the samples. 11. Adverting to the other argument of Mr. Bishnoi that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the report has taken more than 30 days; this Court is of the view that such argument is required to be considered and dealt with after completion of evidence and upon appraisal of entire oral & ocular evidence because, Rule 23 of the Rules of 1973 postulates that the Laboratory has to send report within 30 days of the receipt of the sample. The date of receipt of the sample by the Laboratory at Sriganganagar is not on record. It is, therefore, a matter of evidence as to when the samples were sent and received by the Laboratory at Sriganganagar. 12. While rejecting petitioners' first ground, a liberty is hereby given to the petitioner to take this ground at the time of final hearing of the case. If such contention is raised, the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. 13. The petition is however dismissed, as indicated herein above. 14. Stay application also stands disposed of.