S. L. KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 454 of the Cr. P. C. against the judgment and order dated 29/11/2002 passed in Special Case No. 42/99 by learned Special Judge; I ADJ (NDPS Act) Mandsaur in ordering for confiscation of motorcycle MP 14/e/6487. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, appellant was found going on this Suzuki motorcycle having possession of 60 gm of heroin. He was caught and after due investigation, produced before the Court for prosecution. The learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment, found him guilty and convicted under Section 21 (b) of NDPS Act (for brevity the Act) and sentenced to R. I. for one and half year and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine further R. I. for four months. Against this conviction, the appellant has not preferred any appeal. But he has filed this appeal against the order of confiscation passed by the impugned judgment in para 23. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that there is no clear finding arrived at by the trial court that the Suzuki motorcycle was used for carrying contraband article like heroin. In fact according to the prosecution case, heroin was seized in search of the person of the appellant and it was found tied at the waist of the appellant. Therefore, it could not be said that in view of the provision under Section 60 (3) of the Act, the conveyance was used in carrying narcotic drug. He further submits that the contraband article was not concealed in dicky or any part of the motorcycle. Therefore, it could not be said that the motorcycle was used for carrying the narcotic drug. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the appellant was the owner of the motorcycle and he himself was riding the same. He was caught going on motorcycle having in possession the contraband narcotic drug like heroin. He was guilty for possessing the seized article and he has not challenged his conviction. He further submitted that since for carrying narcotic drug, the appellant has used the motorcycle and he himself was riding the motorcycle. Therefore, it can be easily be discerned that motorcycle was used by him for carrying narcotic drug. He was guilty for possessing the seized article and he has not challenged his conviction. He further submitted that since for carrying narcotic drug, the appellant has used the motorcycle and he himself was riding the motorcycle. Therefore, it can be easily be discerned that motorcycle was used by him for carrying narcotic drug. He further put forth that it is not necessary that the narcotic drug must been hidden or kept inside or on the body of the conveyance. In Section 60 (3) of the Act word is conveyance used meaning thereby that while transporting the contraband narcotic drug, if vehicle or conveyance is used, it is liable to be confiscated and for this purpose, the statute has used the word shall, which shows that if offence is proved and it is also proved that the vehicle was used for carrying narcotic drug within the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, then there is no escape from loosing the vehicle by the owner of the vehicle in pursuance of the order of confiscation. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the view that Section 60 (3) is very clear on the point that if the conveyance is used for carrying any narcotic drug and if the owner is not able to prove that it was so used without his knowledge or connivance as well as he had taken all precaution for such use, he could not escape from loosing the vehicle if so used. In the present case, appellant himself was riding the motorcycle. He is the owner of the motorcycle and from his possession narcotic drug was seized. Iherefbre, it ampty pvved that mcaorcycle was used for carrying narcotic drug. Therefore, in the facts and feature of the case as well as looking to the mandatory provision of Section 60 (3) of the Act, the learned trial Court has rightly ordered for confiscation of the seized motorcycle. ( 6 ) IN the result, since there is no substance in the appeal, the same stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .