ORDER A.G URAIZEE, J.:— The present applicant, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, is filed to condone the delay of 316 days, which has occurred to challenge the judgment and order of the acquittal dated 18/7/2014 passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Veraval in Criminal Case No. 605 of 2008. 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Shrimali, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. N.J Shah, learned APP for respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.S Padhya, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 3. Mr. Shirmali, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 2014 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge to challenge the judgment of learned Trial Magistrate instead of preferring an appeal in this Court under the bonafide mistake. Therefore, he urges that the delay may be condoned. 4. Mr. Padhya, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has strongly objected to the condonation of delay and has contended that the revision application before the Lower Appellate Court was filed under the legal advice and therefore, the applicant cannot be heard to contend that the revision application was filed under the bonafide mistake and therefore, he urges that the delay may be condoned. 5. Mr. N.J Shah, learned APP for respondent No. 1 State has submitted that considering the facts of the present case, the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. The applicant contended in para 4 of the present application that the applicant had preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 17/2004 in the Sessions Court at Veraval but later on, the learned advocate for the applicant realized that the criminal appeal in the High Court is provided for in the Code instead of revision application. Therefore, the delay of 316 days is occurred. 7. I am of the view that the applicant was prosecuting his remedy before the wrong forum under legal advice and that itself is enough to condone the delay of 316 days. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the present application is succeeded and allowed. The delay of 316 days, which has occurred to challenge the judgment and order of the acquittal dated 18/7/2014 passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Veraval in Criminal Case No. 605 of 2008, is hereby condoned. 9. Rule made absolute. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the present application is succeeded and allowed. The delay of 316 days, which has occurred to challenge the judgment and order of the acquittal dated 18/7/2014 passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Veraval in Criminal Case No. 605 of 2008, is hereby condoned. 9. Rule made absolute. 10. The Registry is directed to list the Criminal Misc. Application No. 16196 of 2015 for admission on board on 16/2/2016.