Second: he must have no case before him. If he does have a case before him, then the judge may not accept his gift, even if he was someone who used to exchange gifts with him before he assumed office.

Thus, there are four categories:

The first is a gift from someone who used to give him gifts before his appointment, and who has no case before him. That is, it was customary for him to give the judge a gift whenever he returned from a journey, or whenever he had some occasion, and the like. There is nothing wrong with this, because it is entirely remote from bribery, and the basic presumption is permissibility.

The second is a man who gives him a gift but was not accustomed to giving him gifts, and who has no case before him. According to the madhhab, this is not permissible, as the author explicitly states, because there was no established custom of gift-giving between them. The second view is that it is permissible.

The third is that he gives him a gift while having a case before him, though it was not his custom to give him gifts. This is forbidden and impermissible.

The fourth is that he has a case before him and gives him a gift, while being someone who had customarily exchanged gifts with him beforehand. This too is impermissible.

The categories, then, are four. One is permissible: where the giver used to give him gifts before his appointment and has no case before him. The remaining three are impermissible according to the madhhab. The correct view is that if the gift is not from someone who has a case before him, then there is nothing wrong with it, even if he had not previously given him gifts.

There remains the case of a man who used to give him gifts before his appointment and then gives him a gift while having a case before him, but the judge is unaware of that case and only learns of it afterward. Must the judge return the gift?

The answer is: Yes.