State, not victim, has interest in criminal prosecutions.

- Because the purpose of criminal law is to serve the public functions of deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution, it is the state, not the victim, that has an interest in criminal prosecutions. Ambles v. State, 259 Ga. 406, 383 S.E.2d 555 (1989).

Trial court abused the court's discretion by dismissing charges alleging that the defendant violated state statutes prohibiting affrays, disrupting a public school, and criminal trespass by fighting on school grounds, over the state's objection, after defense counsel told the court that school officials wanted the charges dismissed. State v. Perry, 261 Ga. App. 886, 583 S.E.2d 909 (2003).

Action by informer generally impermissible.

- Qui tam action, in accordance with this section, cannot be brought and prosecuted in the name of the informer unless a right thus to sue shall have been given distinctly by statute. O'Kelly v. Athens Mfg. Co., 36 Ga. 51 (1867).

No inherent right of informant to forfeiture in criminal case.

- Informer who commences a qui tam action under a penal statute does not acquire thereby a vested right to the forfeiture. Bank of St. Mary's v. State, 12 Ga. 475 (1853); Robison v. Beall, 26 Ga. 1 (1858); Hargroves v. Chambers, 30 Ga. 580 (1860).

Cited in Malone v. Clark, 109 Ga. App. 134, 135 S.E.2d 517 (1964).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Actions, § 1 et seq., 43 et seq. 59 Am. Jur. 2d, Parties, §§ 24, 26.

C.J.S.

- 1A C.J.S., Actions, § 1 et seq. 7A C.J.S., Attorney General, § 65 et seq.