( People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3d 107, 114 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 397, 702 P.2d 555], fn. 5; People v. Richards (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 465, 469-471 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 845].) Courts in other states have reached similar conclusions. ( State v. Hecht (1984) 116 Wis.2d 605 [ 342 N.W.2d 721, 731]; Loder v. State (1976) 140 Ga. App. 166 [ 230 S.E.2d 124, 127], vacated by 238 Ga. 200 [ 232 S.E.2d 71], reaffirmed in 141 Ga. App. 665 [ 234 S.E.2d 132]; State v. Mansir (Me. 1982) 440 A.2d 6, 7.) Defendant, citing People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318], argues that the prosecutor was required to prove the existence of a specific intent on defendant's part to sell cocaine or to facilitate the particular sales ultimately made by Caiello.

In his sole enumeration of error, appellant takes issue with the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted of the sale of marijuana if he were acting solely as a procuring agent for another. Appellant's contention is controlled adversely to him by this court's decisions in Bailey v. State, 163 Ga. App. 464 (5) ( 294 S.E.2d 702); Royal v. State, 158 Ga. App. 405 (3) ( 280 S.E.2d 427); and Loder v. State, 140 Ga. App. 166 (2) ( 230 S.E.2d 124), vacated in 238 Ga. 200 ( 232 S.E.2d 71), reaffirmed in 141 Ga. App. 665 ( 234 S.E.2d 132). "This `procuring agent' theory has been raised before and has been rejected. [Cits.] The apparent rationale behind the rejection of this theory is that a `party to the crime' under Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1271 (Code Ann. § 26-801 (a)) [OCGA § 16-2-20 (a)] is a person who is `concerned' with the crime, and that he may be tried and convicted and punished as if he had directly committed the crime, and that this is so whether or not he is not charged under Code Ann. § 26-801 (a).

3. The second and fourth enumerations alleged error because the trial court refused to direct a verdict on the ground that the evidence showed the defendant in purchasing the marijuana acted solely as procuring agent for the state agents, and because the jury was not instructed that the defendant could not be convicted of the sale of marijuana if he was acting solely as the procuring agent for the state agents. These contentions are controlled adversely to defendant by Loder v. State, 140 Ga. App. 166 (2) ( 230 S.E.2d 124), vacated by 238 Ga. 200 ( 232 S.E.2d 71) and reaffirmed by 141 Ga. App. 665 ( 234 S.E.2d 132). "This `procuring agent' theory has been raised before and has been rejected.

'" Keith v. State, 238 Ga. 157, 158 ( 231 S.E.2d 727). Even if the informant were a witness this would not be controlling "where such evidence is not necessary to obtain a conviction." Taylor v. State, 136 Ga. App. 31 (1) ( 220 S.E.2d 49); accord, Estevez v. State, 130 Ga. App. 215 (2) ( 202 S.E.2d 686); Kitchens v. State, 134 Ga. App. 81 (3) ( 213 S.E.2d 180); see also Loder v. State, 140 Ga. App. 166, 168 (1) ( 230 S.E.2d 124), vacated 238 Ga. 200 ( 232 S.E.2d 71) affd. 141 Ga. App. 665 ( 234 S.E.2d 132).

There is no merit in the contention of the defendant that the court erred in giving the substance of Code Ann. § 26-801 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1271) as to a person concerned in the commission of a crime. See Hannah v. State, 125 Ga. App. 596, 598-599 (2) ( 188 S.E.2d 401); Simmons v. State, 129 Ga. App. 107 ( 198 S.E.2d 718); Loder v. State, 140 Ga. App. 166, 168 (2) ( 230 S.E.2d 124), judgment vacated on other grounds, s.c., 238 Ga. 200 ( 232 S.E.2d 71); Jackson v. State, 143 Ga. App. 406 (1) ( 238 S.E.2d 752). There is no merit in this complaint. 12. For the same reason as that stated in Division 11 above, the trial court did not err in charging on conspiracy in that the defendant was contending he was collecting the money for the use of another.

Moss v. State, 136 Ga. App. 241, 242 (2) ( 220 S.E.2d 761) (1975). See also Sisk v. State, 182 Ga. 448, 455 (7) ( 185 S.E. 777) (1936); Taylor v. State, 243 Ga. 222, 226 (6) ( 253 S.E.2d 191) (1979); Clanton v. State, 137 Ga. App. 376, 377 (2) ( 224 S.E.2d 58) (1976); Loder v. State, 140 Ga. App. 166, 169 (3) ( 230 S.E.2d 124) (1976) (vacated on other grounds, 238 Ga. 200; affirmed on remand, 141 Ga. App. 665); Gamble v. State, 141 Ga. App. 304 (2) ( 223 S.E.2d 264) (1977); Hall v. State, 143 Ga. App. 706, 708 (4) ( 240 S.E.2d 125) (1977). Compare McGuire v. State, 238 Ga. 247 ( 232 S.E.2d 243) (1977); Bethea v. State, 149 Ga. App. 312, 313 (2) ( 254 S.E.2d 468) (1979).