Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Two legal issues have been raised by the appellants in the five captioned appeals. The first issue concerns the interpretation of the proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The second concerns the interplay of sub-Section 2 of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with sub-Section 8 thereof.

2. Pursuant to FIRs registered by the National Investigating Agency for offences punishable under Section 121A and 123 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 17, 18, 18B, 19, 20, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as amended by Act No.35 of 2008, the three appellants were arrested. Denied bail and sent to judicial custody the detention continued. Since investigation related to alleged offences committed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 continued, Section 43D of the said Act permitted the designated Court to extend the period of detention to 180 days, and before 90 days period of detention lapsed, on May 23, 2013 an application was filed by the Investigating Officer supported by a report of the learned Public Prosecutor praying that period o